Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill.

Bill committed.

Standing Orders,

Resolution reported from the Select Committee;

"That, in the case of the Yorkshire Electric Power [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolution agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (RECRUITMENT, DOMINIONS).

Mr. DONNER: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will consult the Governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa with a view to establishing machinery, beyond the existing preliminary examinations, in order to arrange examinations in these Dominions constituting a final acceptance, for those wishing to enlist in the Royal Navy?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I understand that the Board of Admiralty are satisfied with the present position as regards the recruitment from the Dominions of ratings for

the Royal Navy. Every consideration would, of course, be given to any suggestion which might be made by any of His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, but I gather that there are considerable practical obstacles in the way of any extension of the existing arrangements.

Mr. DONNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable demand in the Dominions at the present time for some improvement in this matter?

Mr. MacDONALD: Any suggestion from Dominion Governments will, of course, receive careful consideration.

Earl WINTERTON: Does this cover the case of Newfoundland, where there are a number of men willing to join the Royal Navy, but there is no means of bringing them in?

Mr. MacDONALD: I will look into that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, following on the recent success of the coal-cattle negotiations with the Irish Free State, he will now set on foot negotiations for settling all outstanding economic disputes between this country and the Irish Free State?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have this aspect of the matter in mind and can assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will not fail to take advantage of any opportunity of improving relations between this country and the Irish Free State.

Mr. LOGAN: Is in, possible for the right hon. Gentleman to initiate proceedings with a view to improving the relationship between the two countries? The same promise was made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, but nothing was done.

Mr. LEWIS: Would it not be well before entering into a further agreement with the Irish Free State to wait until they honour the obligations they have already undertaken?

Mr. MacDONALD: I can add nothing to the answer I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMIGRATION.

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that his predecessor stated, on 20th June, 1935 [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1935, col. 593, Vol. 302], that there have never been fewer than 50,000 people ready, anxious, and willing to emigrate; how was this figure arrived at; and whether this figure is substantially accurate to-day?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The figure in question was, I understand, based on an estimate made some years ago when Government-aided migration schemes were in active operation. As my hon. Friend is aware, such schemes are at present in abeyance owing to the depression, and it is consequently impossible to estimate whether this figure still holds good.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: May I ask whether during this Parliament the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take definite measures in the direction of increasing the amount of emigration?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am anxious that emigration should start again as early as possible, but beyond that I cannot go at the present time.

Mr. LUNN: What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take in view of the fact that many thousands more are now coming back to this country than are leaving the country? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he is going to do?

Mr. MacDONALD: I said that I am anxious emigration should start again as soon as possible; that means as soon as economic conditions allow.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state when the next Imperial Conference will be held; and whether consideration will be given to the desirability of holding it in this country in connection with the Coronation ceremonies to take place in 1937?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: No arrangement regarding the date of the next Imperial Conference has yet been made between

the Governments concerned. I am sure that the possibility to which my hon. Friend refers in the second part of his question will be borne in mind in consideration of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (FILMS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will give particulars of the two sound films that were produced by the Empire Marketing Board at a cost of £16,000; and has he any particulars of the number of times these films have been exhibited and where such exhibitions have taken place?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The films in question were entitled "One Family" and "A Southern April" The film interests of the Empire Marketing Board passed to the Postmaster-General on 1st October, 1933, on the dissolution of the board, but I understand that the total number of bookings of these films to date are approximately 200 and 225 respectively. I am not in a position to give a list of the places at which the films have been shown.

Mr. DAY: Were these films produced in Great Britain or in the Colonies?

Mr. MacDONALD: I understand that one of them and perhaps both contain pictures of various parts of the Empire and, therefore, presumably were taken outside this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEA SETTLEMENT BOARD.

Mr. A. A. SOMERVILLE: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the establishment of the Oversea Settlement Board?

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is now able to announce the personnel and terms of reference of the Oversea Settlement Board?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Oversea Settlement Board has now been constituted. The three official members are the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (my right


hon. Friend, the Member for the Chorley Division of Lancaster), who will be Chairman of the board; Mr. E. G. Machtig, C.M.G., O.B.E., an Assistant Under-Secretary of State at the Dominions Office, and Mr. A. P. Water-field, C.B., a Principal Assistant Secretary at the Treasury.

The following have agreed to serve as the unofficial members:

The Dowager Marchioness of Reading.
Dr. W C. S. Adams (Warden of All Souls' College, Oxford).
Mr. George Gibson (a member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress).
Mr. H. J. Mitchell (President of Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd.).
Brigadier-General J.J.H. Nation, C.V.O., D.S.O., who was formerly a Member of this House.

The functions of the board will be to advise the Secretary of State upon specific proposals for schemes of migration within the Empire and upon any matter relating to oversea settlement which may be referred by him to the board. I anticipate that the first meeting of the board will be held at an early date.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will the board be prepared to initiate as well as consider comprehensive plans for Empire development?

Mr. MacDONALD: They can consider any proposals which come into their minds. They have an initiative of their own.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: What personal knowledge have the members of this board of conditions in various parts of the Dominions? Would it not be wiser to have members who have a personal experience of the life and work in the Dominions?

Mr. MacDONALD: I understand that a majority of the members have a personal experience of life and travel in the Dominions.

Mr. LUNN: I presume that the constitution and personnel of this board may be discussed on the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: How does the board propose to take evidence?

What opportunities will be afforded them for taking evidence?

Mr. MacDONALD: That is a matter for the board themselves, and probably they will consider it at their first meeting.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Have the board any power with regard to questions of employment and administration?

Mr. MacDONALD: If they want powers of that kind, they will say so.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY (STEAM TRAWLERS, SURVEYS).

Mr. GARRO-JONES: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that approximately one-third of the steam trawlers fishing out of Aberdeen are not surveyed by Lloyds; that there is no statutory obligation upon their owners to subject them to survey however old they may be; that complaints by their crews have, in the past, resulted in dismissal; and whether he will take immediate steps to inform himself of the discontent among those who have to man these ships?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I have no information with regard to the third part. As regards the fourth part, I propose to await the report of the Sea Fish Commission, which, I understand, will be available shortly.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Can it be right or necessary to await the result of any report before providing that these fishing vessels are subject to any authoritative survey of any kind whatever? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something immediately to remedy that defect in the law?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that some reference will be made to this matter in the report of the Sea Fish Commission, and I wish to take advantage of their advice.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIGHTHOUSE STEAMER "PHAROS."

Mr. MATHERS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received information regarding the dismissal of a member of the crew of the


northern lighthouse steamer "Pharos," without an opportunity being afforded to him to refute any charges which may be alleged against him; and whether he will cause a face-to-face inquiry to be made into the charges on which the dismissal was based, allowing the dismissed man to have the assistance of his trade union official and securing the attendance of such officers and members of the crew of the "Pharos" as may be able to assist in ascertaining the facts?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, with whom I have been in communication, state that the man in question was dismissed from their service for disciplinary reasons in March, 1935, that the case was carefully considered at the time and that it is not proposed to reopen it. The matter is entirely within the responsibility of the Commissioners, and I have no power to order such an inquiry as is suggested.

Mr. MATHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the man in question was not given an opportunity to meet any charges that were put forward as a reason for his dismissal, and, in view of that, does he not think that someone, if not himself, must offer an inquiry? Can he tell me who has the power to order an inquiry into a matter of this kind?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As this is not a matter of finance, I think it would come within the purview of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, but as the matter rests now it is not one for me.

Mr. MATHERS: I want to press the right hon. Gentleman to tell me who can conduct an inquiry into this very unsatisfactory case.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have said, it is within the right of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses to deal with this subject, and I am afraid that I cannot impinge on their jurisdiction. If the hon. Member would like to discuss it with me, or with one of the officials of the Board, we will go into the matter with him.

Mr. MATHERS: If I fail to get satisfaction in that direction, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Trade the exact number of commercial agreements with foreign countries which can be brought to an end during 1936; and will be give particulars?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11th February to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Holdsworth), a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. DAY: How much notice is required to terminate these agreements?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The periods of notice necessary are mentioned in the agreements.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any specific information?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have given such information as I have. Beyond that I cannot go.

NEW FACTORIES.

Mr. MALCOLM MacMILLAN: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new works established in Scotland and the number of works which have closed down during the past year in Scotland, apart from those works which have merely been transferred to other parts of Scotland?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: A preliminary examination of the reports received in connection with the Survey of Industrial Development for 1935 shows that 26 new factories were opened in Scotland during the past year, while 18 factories were closed. These figures do not include either factories transferred from one part of Scotland to another, or factories designed to provide employment for less than 25 people.

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new factories opened in Great Britain and South Wales, respectively, during 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935, and the number of persons employed at these factories?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. T. SMITH: Will these figures show how many of the factories in question have been closed down?

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Do the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman refer to the places?

The following statement shows the desired information, so far as it is available. The figures relate only to factories designed to provide empoyment for at least 25 workpeople.


—
Year.
New factories opened.
Employment provided by those new factories at dates shown below.


Great Britain
…
…
…
1932
636
53,750 (Dec., 1933)






1933
467
31,700 (Dec., 1934)






1934
478
37,200 (Dec., 1934)






1935
Not yet available.


of which:








South Wales (a)
…
…
1932
5
185 (April, 1933)






1933
2
460 (Dec., 1934)






1934
Nil
Nil






1935
4(b)
Not yet available.


(a) Not including Monmouth.
(b) provisional figure.

DENMARK.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW MILNE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the great decline in carpet exports to Denmark owing to the reduction from 50 per cent. to 30 per cent. in licences granted, and that the result of this action is that in many cases no further British carpets can be purchased until May; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
(2) whether he has any information regarding the negotiations between the Danish and German Governments with the objects of increasing the importation of German carpets into Denmark; and whether, in view of the serious effects upon British carpet exports to Denmark which have resulted from past trade arrangements with that country, he will give special attention to the position of the carpet trade in the negotiations for a new British-Danish trade treaty?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No information more specific than that which has appeared in the Press is available as to the provisions of the recent agreement between Denmark and Germany, but I am making further inquiries. I am aware that reductions have recently been made by the Danish authorities in the volume of import licences for United Kingdom carpets and representations have been

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question referred to factories in Great Britain and Wales, and they are given under separate headings.

Following is the redly:

addressed to the Danish Government. The matter will be taken up in the forth- coming discussions with representatives of the Danish Government. I would point out, however, that according to United Kingdom trade statistics exports of carpets from the United Kingdom to Denmark have increased from 180,000 square yards in 1933 to 258,000 square yards in 1935.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time ascertain whether it is not the case that pending negotiations for a treaty of this kind between Denmark and Germany, Germany has, in fact, received much more favourable treatment from Denmark than Denmark is giving this country, whose exports to Denmark are falling off?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will make further inquiries.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether the Danish Government, in restricting imports from this country in this manner, are not basing themselves on their own misleading case?

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the exports from Great Britain to Denmark, including re-exports, for the nine month. ended September,


1935, are recorded in the Trade and Navigation Returns as being of a value of £10,942,000, whereas the imports into Denmark from the United Kingdom in the same period are recorded in the Foreign Trade and Commerce Accounts as being of a value of £15,945,000, based upon the mean rate of exchange quoted therein; and how this discrepancy of £5,000,000 arises?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the reply what long, I will circulate it OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The discrepancy in question is the following causes:—

(1) The imports are valued c.i.f., while the exports are valued f.o.b.
(2) There is a time-lag between export and import.
(3) The application of an average rate of exchange to the aggregate value of the trade over the whole period in question instead of the actual rates ruling when the individual entries were recorded in the Trade Returns.
(4) The recorded value of imports into Denmark from the United Kingdom relates to goods purchased here while the value of the exports from the United Kingdom relates only to goods consigned from this country to Denmark.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will have an opportunity of making known to this House the terms of the new agreement with Denmark; and whether, in framing these terms, he will bear in mind the way Denmark is treating the present one?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Negotiations will be opened very shortly. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. CHORLTON: In view of the dissatisfaction which has been expressed at the way the agreements have been carried out, can the right lion. Gentleman explain what he proposes to do in the new one?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have under notice many of the comments which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Sir P. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the restrictions imposed by the Ministry of Agriculture on imports of bacon and butter from Denmark are half the trouble?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as I know, they have nothing to do with it.

Mr. LOFTUS: In view of the dissatisfaction in Denmark, before concluding a new agreement with regard to the quota of sea fish, will the right hon. Gentleman study the new report which has been issued by the Sea Fish Commission?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope that opportunity will arise.

SANCTIONS (EXPORTS, ASSISTANCE).

Lieut. - Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since the imposition of sanctions by the League of Nations, any European country has taken any practical steps to assist our exports in the same way as we have done for Jugoslavia?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

ESTONIA, FINLAND AND LATVIA.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the case of Estonia, Finland and Latvia the balance of trade unfavourable to Great Britain has increased between the years 1933 and 1935; and whether he will consider the denunciation of the trade agreements with these three countries in order that this state of affairs may be modified?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the facts stated by my hon. Friend, and also that our exports to Estonia, Finland and Latvia have increased since 1933. The trade agreements are not terminable until 23rd November next in the case of Finland, and 31st December next in the cases of Estonia and Latvia. For the rest, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 11th February to his question about the termination of commercial agreements.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that manufacturers in this country make little or no endeavour to sell their goods in Finland?

ARGENTINA.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is


aware that the trade balance between Great Britain and the Argentine Republic has not altered materially in the past two years, being over £28,000,000 in favour of the Argentine; and whether, when he is negotiating a new trade agreement, he will take steps to bring about a state of affairs more in accordance with a real balance of payments between, this country and the Argentine?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. As regards the second part of the question, however, I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of Article 2 of the Anglo-Argentine Trade Agreement of May, 1933.

HOLLAND.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the increase in imports of butter from Holland since 1933 has amounted to 318,000 cwts., and of eggs from the same country since 1934 from 944,000 great hundreds to 2,679,000 great hundreds; and whether he will denounce the trade agreement with Holland in order to protect British agriculture from this competition?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the facts. The exchange of notes of 20th July, 1934, with Holland provides for the limitation of imports from Holland in the event of a quota being established for imports of any class of goods into the United Kingdom. It would not be necessary, therefore, to denounce the agreement to put into operation a system of quotas applicable to butter and eggs.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the quotas proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture have been ignored by the Netherlands authorities?

OTTAWA AGREEMENT.

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now considered the statement he has received from the Federation of British Industries criticising the Ottawa Agreement; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; and I will keep the statement in mind whenever the trade relations between this country and

any of the other countries parties to the Ottawa Agreement are under discussion.

ITALY.

Mr. RILEY: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of imports from Italy to the United Kingdom, and the total value of exports from the United Kingdom to Italy, if any, for January, 1936, and the corresponding figures for January, 1935?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total declared value of merchandise imported into the United Kingdom and registered during January, 1936, as consigned from Italy was £24,133 and of exports to Italy £53,214, including re-exports valued at £10,523. The figures for January, 1935, were £666,730 for imports and £994,320 for exports, including re-exports valued at £169,519.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the persons who have been thrown out of employment by this policy are in receipt of unemployment pay?

NATIONAL NECESSITIES (PRICES).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in addition to the other preparations which the Government are making to meet the possible contingency of another war, they are also preparing a. scheme, capable of immediate application and calculated to be effective in operation to prevent profiteering in national necessities such as occurred during the Great War?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The importance of this question is fully appreciated.

Mr. THURTLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman prepared a scheme or not?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It does not rest with me.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I originally put this question to the Prime Minister; and if it does not rest with him, can he tell me with whom does it rest?

Mr. GARRO-JONES: What does the right hon. Gentleman's appreciation boil down to? Does he contemplate taking any measures to deal with the situation? Is his appreciation worth anything?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot answer for any Department except the Board of Trade.

Mr. HARDIE: Why was the question shifted?

RUSSIA.

Mr. BURKE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has carried out its obligations under the exports credits scheme, he will take steps to reduce the guarantee charges; and further, in order to promote the financing of orders by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for heavy machinery and industrial plant, he will take steps for the floating of a medium or long term public loan to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to be expended in this manner?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 17th December last. The question of the best means of securing additional orders of the kind referred to from the Soviet Government is under active consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the matter.

Mr. PETHERICK: As the balance of trade is heavily in favour of Russia at the present time, is there any reason why they should not increase their purchases from this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope they will continue to increase their purchases from this country.

BACON (SUPPLIES).

Mr. W. H. GREEN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the present shortage of bacon supplies and consequent high prices; and whether he will take immediate steps to vary the import quota in order to remedy the position?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The latest information available with regard to supplies coming forward indicates that total supplies of bacon are probably at present below the level recommended by the Lane Fox Commission. Arrangements have, therefore, been made with foreign

countries for the importation of 5,000 additional cwts. this week and a further 5,000 cwts. next week.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those responsible for the supplies cannot keep in closer touch with the demand in the market so that these shortages may not take place?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the committee is actively at work, and that it is attempting to maintain its information up to date.

Mr. GREEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable section of the retail trade has asked for relief from the present conditions; and have not considerable representations been made to that effect?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bring that matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.

CHROME UPPER LEATHER (DUTY).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is in a position to make any announcement in respect of the application made in June, 1934, for an increase in the duty on chrome upper leather; and whether his attention has been drawn to the serious situation prevailing in the industry affected?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I appreciate the various factors in this case, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any announcement.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT, 1927.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to set up a committee in the near future to inquire into the working of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The matter is under consideration.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Act is working satisfactorily at the present time?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would put that question on the Paper.

MERCANTILE MARINE.

EMPIRE SERVICES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position of the negotiations with regard to the continuance of an Empire steamship service between Australasia and the North American Continent?

Mr. LEWIS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a further statement as to the Government's proposals with regard to the competition of subsidised foreign shipping between Australia, New Zealand, and Fiji, and the West Coast of North America?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not at present able to acid anything to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) on 6th February last.

Sir A. POWNALL: Is it a fact or not that a meeting is to be held in this country in two or three months' time to deal with this question?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know to what meeting the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers, but the subject has been under discussion, and will no doubt form the basis of further discussion.

Mr. LEWIS: If I put down a question on the same subject in a month's time, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give some more definite information?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will give my hon. Friend the latest views at that time.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

Mr. EDE: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the statement by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee that any evasions of the manning regulations by shipowners are not to be attributed to the existing law but to weakness in its enforcement, he will undertake to strengthen the enforcement of the law in this and cognate matters;
(2) whether, in view of the statement by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee that Circular 1463 fell short of that Committee's recommendations, he will now more specifically define the term, efficient deck hand, so that the definition of efficiency shall be precise, workable,

and of exactly similar standard in all ports;
(3) whether, in view of the recommendations of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee on the deck manning of foreign-going cargo ships, he can now promise legislation in the near future to make those recommendations statutory?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary stated in Debate on 20th February, steps are being taken to give early effect to the Committee's proposals. No new legislation is necessary for this purpose.

Mr. EDE: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will strengthen the enforcement of the law in the matters referred to?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is the meaning of my answer.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will there be adequate time for discussion?

Mr. SHINWELL: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the regulations will be enforced?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As soon as we can get them ready.

TRAMP SHIPPING (FOREIGN SUBSIDIES).

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can specify the European countries providing subsidies to tramp shipping; whether any other countries have granted any financial assistance in 1935; and the sums expended in each case?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Among the European countries whose ships engage substantially in international trade, those which grant financial assistance to shipping extending beyond subsidies to liner services, include Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Russia and Spain. Japan and the United States of America are among the non-European countries of major importance which grant financial assistance. United States' ships, however, take little pan directly in tramp voyages. Except in the case of France, Italy and Spain, in respect of which information has already been furnished in reply to a previous question by the hon. Member, it is not possible to state the sums expended in assistance to tramp shipping as distinct front other categories.

OIL FUEL.

Sir ROBERT YOUNG: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of British mercantile tonnage burns oil fuel; and what proportion of such ships has been converted during the past four years from coal to oil users?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

According to the particulars given in the 1935–36 edition of Lloyd's Register Book there are 9,169 steamers and motor ships of 100 tons gross and upwards on the British Register representing 20,284,057 gross tons. Of this total, 882 were motor ships of 3,144,362 tons gross and 1,066 were steamers fitted for burning oil fuel of 5,993,467 tons gross. Included in the last mentioned figure are a number of vessels which use coal or oil alternatively. I am unable to say what proportion of the vessels now on the British Register have been converted from coal to oil burning during the last four years, but the hon. Member may like to compare the present position with that obtaining four years earlier when the vessels on the British Register included 694 motor ships of 2,718,467 gross tons and 1,104 steamers fitted for burning oil fuel of 6,200,060 tons gross out of a total of 9,940 steamers and motor ships of 100 tons gross, and over, of a total tonnage of 23,127,316 tons gross.

COST OF LIVING.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the increase in the cost-of-living figures in 1935 as compared with 1933; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that in 1935 the cost of living index prepared by the Ministry of Labour was, on the average, approximately 2 per cent. higher than in 1933.

FIXED TRUSTS.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the published joint statement of accounts of the

National Fixed Investment Trust, Limited, Commercial Fixed Trust, Limited, and the Amalgamated Fixed Trust, Limited, for the year 1935; and whether, as this type of statement is not up to the requirements of the Companies Acts, he can say in what way his Department ensures compliance by these concerns with the regulations under the Companies Acts?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but as the companies to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are private companies they are not required, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1929, to publish their accounts. As I stated in this House on 11th February, the whole question of fixed trusts is to be considered by a departmental committee which is in process of being set up.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give approximately the date when he expects that report?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have referred only to the setting up of the committee. It is proceeding as rapidly as possible.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is need for the greatest urgency in this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am awaiting answers to the invitations which I have addressed to gentlemen who are being asked to compose the committee. I canont do more than that at the moment.

Mr. ALEXANDER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether pending the issue of the report of the proposed committee inquiring into matters relating to fixed trusts, he will issue a general advice to the public not to subscribe to any new fixed trusts which may be floated until the Government has laid down conditions under which such trusts will be allowed to operate?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

Mr. SHINWELL: As there appears to be some doubt in the public mind regarding these trusts, why is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to issue general advice?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Because I am not prepared to take action until I have received the necessary information.

BRITISH ARMY.

TERRITORIAL FORCE.

Mr. KIMBALL: asked the Secretary of State for War the names of the members of the advisory committee set up last year for the purpose of keeping the War Office in close touch with current Territorial Army problems; and how often that committee has met?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): As the answer is rather long I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The members of the Territorial Army Advisory Committee are:—

Colonel The Viscount Cobham, T.D., Chairman, Business and Finance Committee of the Council of County Territorial Associations.
Major J. M. Reddie, C.B., D.L., Advisory Secretary to the Council of County Territorial Associations.

These two gentlemen are ex-officio members of the Committee. In addition there are six members representing the different Commands:

Colonel F. H. D. C. Whitmore, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., T.D., D.L., Chairman, Essex Territorial Army Association.
Colonel G. M. Giles, M.C., T.D., Commanding 2nd (London) Infantry Brigade, Territorial Army.
Colonel N. Douglas, T.D., Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services, 50th (Northumbrian) Division, Territorial Army.
Major T. A. Harvie Anderson, C.B., T.D., D.L., Secretary, Glasgow Territorial Army Association.
Brigadier-General B. P. Portal, C.B., D.S.O., D.L., Chairman, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Territorial Army Association.
Colonel L. C. Mandleberg, D.S.O., M.C., T.D., Commanding 7th Battalion, The Cheshire Regiment.

The Committee has met four times.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that married men under 26 years of age attending Territorial camps receive no marriage allow-

ance or allowance for their children, though married men over that age receive both allowances; upon what grounds this difference in treatment is justified; and whether, in order to remove discouragement from younger men in the Territorials, he will consider amending the regulations so as to ensure for all married men the same allowances?

Mr. COOPER: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this subject when introducing the forthcoming Army Estimates.

HORSES, EGYPT.

Mr. T. COOK: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made to prevent horses becoming the property of natives, in the case of mounted troops in Egypt which may be mechanised?

Mr. COOPER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given yesterday to similar questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Touche) and Islington, North (Colonel Goodman).

Lord APSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very small establishments on which these regiments are working and, in view of the fact that horses may at any time be required for operation in areas where mechanical vehicles cannot be used, will he consider redrafting these horses to units not mechanised?

Mr. COOPER: That will be considered.

Mr. HARDIE: To whom do the horses belong?

Mr. COOPER: They belong to the Government.

WAR DEPARTWIT PROPERTY, IMBER.

Mr. GRIMSTON: asked the Secretary of State for W it whether the scheme for the replacement and reconditioning of War Department cottage property at Imber has been approved and, if so, when work will be commenced?

Mr. COOPER: The scheme for the replacement and re conditioning of War Department cottage property in the Imber area has been approved and work has been in progress since last spring on a number of cottages at Chitterne. I hope it possible shortly to make a start in Imber village itself.

Mr. GRIMSTON: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to see that the work on this property is hastened on as much as possible?

PROMOTIONS.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers who enlisted as privates have been given commissioned rank, other than that of lieutenant-quarter-master, in the course of the last four years?

Mr. COOPER: The number is 100.

CHURCH PARADE.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the other ranks of the Army an opportunity of indicating, by means of a. referendum, or in any other way which may be suitable, whether or not they wish the present practice of compulsory church parade to continue?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the bishops and ascertain whether they wish private soldiers to be coerced into attending church services?

Mr. COOPER: I am quite prepared to consider doing so.

ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. HALLL-CAINE: asked the Prime Minister how many meetings of the Economic Advisory Committee have taken place during the current year; whether there have been any recent changes in the composition of this body; and whether any are contemplated in the near future?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): As regards the first two parts of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on Thursday last in answer to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby); the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

DEFENCE SERVICES.

ARMAMENT CONTRACTS (COSTINGS).

Mr. GARRO-JONES: asked the Prime Minister what is the nature of the

costings clause upon which the Government rely to prevent profiteering in armament contracts; and whether it contains any provision against evasion by the method of profits made by sub-contracting or supply companies associated openly or secretly with the primary contractors?

Sir HUGH SEELY: asked the Prime Minister whether he will indicate the measure His Majesty's Government propose to take to implement the pledge given that steps would be taken to ensure that there is neither waste nor undue profits to the contractors responsible for supplying armaments to Government Departments?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer hon. Members to what I said yesterday in replying to the question addressed to me by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Bradford (Mr. Leach). I may add that this whole subject is under the closest investigation and will be dealt with in the forthcoming Debate on Defence.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the very specific point in the second part of my question which asks what is the nature of the costings clause and whether it contains certain provisions? Is it not possible to answer that question?

The PRIME MINISTER: That question ought to be addressed to the Air Ministry.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Lord President of the Council whether the scientific research of the country is being organised and co-ordinated for defence service?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The research facilities at the disposal of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are provided for the general advancement of scientific knowledge and its application to industry. As is the case with civil users of the work of the Department, specific problems can be submitted by the Defence Departments upon payment of the necessary charges. The Defence Departments are, moreover, represented on the appropriate Research Boards and Committees


of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I am satisfied that in these and other ways satisfactory coordination exists between the Defence Services and the Research Departments of the Government.

Mr. CHORLTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very complete organisation which has been got together in Germany to deal with this subject?

Mr. MacDONALD: Yes, we are fully aware of it.

Mr. J.J. DAVIDSON: Will the research department consider the defence recommendations made by prominent pacifists during the last War?

LEAGUE OF NATIONS UNION.

Sir W. SMILES: asked the Lord President of the Council whether the provision of the Royal Charter granted to the League of Nations Union imposes any restriction on its political activities similar to those imposed on allied societies in foreign countries such as Germany?

Mr. R. MacDONALD: The charter of the League of Nations Union provides that, in pursuance of the objects for which it was incorporated, the Union shall work as a non-party organisation for the good of the League of Nations. No other restriction is imposed by the charter on its political activities. As regards the latter part of the question relating to the activities of similar bodies in foreign countries, I regret that I am not in a position to give my hon. and gallant Friend the information required.

Sir W. SMILES: Has any ballot on the subject of peace and disarmament taken place in Germany?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am afraid that that does not come under my eyes as Lord President of the Council.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that what takes place in Germany is a proper model for this country to follow?

Mr. MacDONALD: We do it "on our own."

FRANCE (BRITISH LOAN).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £40,000,000 loan to France, recently arranged, had Treasury approval; and is it repayable in sterling or in gold?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The operation had my consent. I understand the loan is in sterling.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has any precaution been taken to prevent credits becoming frozen at the end of the five months as they were in the case of Germany?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no anxiety on that score.

Colonel BURTON: Is there any Government guarantee?

Mr. PETHERICK: Was the loan made to the French Government or to the Bank of France?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask. whether the right hon. Gentleman in this matter regards the security of people who sell goods to France as well as the security of people who advance this large sum of money?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That question does not seem to arise.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Is this particular loan for the manufacture of armaments in France?

FOREIGN LOANS.

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a further statement as to the intention of the Government with regard to the raising of foreign loans in London in future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. This is a matter which is always under my attention but I have no further statement to make at the moment.

Mr. LEWIS: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the very real risk of a boom on the London Stock Exchange if he continues artificially to restrict opportunities for investment?

NATIONAL FINANCE.

SPIRITS, BEER, WINE, ETC. (REVENUE).

Mr. W. ROBERTS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the net revenue derived from duties on spirits, beer, wine, sweets (including British wines), hops, and hop extracts during the calendar years 1934 and 1935 in the United Kingdom?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:


Article.
Approximate Net Revenue Calendar Year ended.


31st December, 1934.
31st December, 1935.


Spirits—
£
£


Home-made
29,243,000
29,238,000


Imported
4,277,000
4,225,000


Total
33,520,000
33,463,000


Beer—




Home-made
52,825,000
55,330,000


Imported
5,084,000
5,311,000


Total
57,909,000
60,641,000


Wine, Imported
4,423,000
4,597,000


Sweets, including British Wines.
312,000
379,000


Hops and Hop Extracts.
189,000
118,000

INCOME TAX (RELIEF).

Mr. CARY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give consideration to the desirability of granting special relief to any taxpayer who supports a member of his or her family who would otherwise be supported by local authorities out of public assistance funds?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that relief from income tax is allowed under the existing law to taxpayers who maintain relatives who are unable to support themselves by reason of old age or infirmity and whose own incomes do not exceed £50 a year. I would remind my hon. Friend that proposals for an extension of this relief have been

discussed in the course of recent Finance Bills but it has not been considered that there are adequate grounds for widening the scope of the existing provisions.

Mr. CARY: As family life is concerned, would my right hon. Friend consider increasing the allowance for dependants' relief from £25 to a more substantial sum, or, better still, recommend a revision of the means test under Part II of the Unemployment Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend cannot expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. BEVAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the occasion of the last two Finance Bills an Amendment was put down to this effect and voted against by members of his party?

DEBT.

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the net increase or decrease in the nominal value of the National Debt since 1st November, 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Figures are not available except those relating to the final day of each financial year. From 31st March, 1932, to 31st March, 1935, the nominal total of the debt increased, apart from issues to the Exchange Equalisation Account, by approximately £16,500,000.

IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there has been any change in the composition of the Import Duties Advisory Committee since it was first set up in 1931; whether any decision has been reached as to the period for which members of this committee should continue to hold office; and whether any changes in the composition of the committee are to take place in the near future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There has been no change in the composition of the Import Duties Advisory Committee since it was first appointed on 1st March, 1932. Under Section 2 (2) of the Import Duties Act, 1932, members of the committee hold office for a period of three years and are eligible for re-appointment. The present period of appointment of each of the three members expires on 28th February, 1938.

Mr. LEACH: Have any of the findings of the Committee been turned down?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say from memory.

Mr. MAXWELL: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state how soon the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee will be available on the question of imported barley?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement on this matter.

Mr. MAXWELL: In view of the fact that this matter has been under consideration for over a year by the Committee, does not my right hon. Friend think it advisable to make some representations to the Committee as it is of urgent, vital and immediate importance to a. vast number of barley growers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt that the Committee is quite aware of that. I understand that discussions are still going on.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Will not the Govern-now consider taking the whole question of cereals out of the hands of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and handling it as a Government in view of the vital national importance of the whole matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That proposition does not commend itself to me prima facie.

Sir R. W. SMITH: Will not the right hon. Gentleman press the Committee to hurry its report?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENSIONS).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the power granted to the Treasury under Section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, in the matter of reckoning previous unestablished service for the purpose of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 and 1859, is in suitable cases applied for the purpose of allowing ex-Service civil servants to count their previous unestablished service up to the maximum possible extent towards their pension rights on retirement?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: Section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, empowers

the Treasury to reckon unestablished service for pension "if in their opinion any special circumstances of the case warrant such a course." if, as I assume, my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the case of ex-Service men originally appointed as such to clerical posts in a purely temporary capacity and subsequently promoted the establishment under special arrangements, the answer is that as regards those initially established the Treasury did not consider that there were such special circumstances as to warrant the reckoning of their previous unestablished service, but that in the case of those who have been recently established a part of such service has been allowed to reckon.

Sir A. KNOX: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that in the past many civil servants have been allowed at least half their unestablished service to count for pension, and also that in the War civil servants who were excepted for military service on account of conscientious objection were allowed to count their period of absence from the service for pensions? On what principle does the hon. Gentleman discriminate between them and ex-service men who in many cases gave up posts of great importance in order to serve their country?

Mr. MORRISON: I am aware that this is a problem with many factors in it, and as it is too long a question to discuss at this time, I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a memorandum showing the steps taken by successive Governments in this matter. If, after considering that, my hon. and gallant Friend wishes any further information. I hope he will be good enough to communicate with me.

Sir A. KNOX: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that I have already received this memorandum and that it does not deal with the points I have in mind?

SCOTLAND.

INDUSTRIAL DHVELOPMENT.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendation of the Commissioner for the special areas in Scotland for the formation of an authoritative Scottish


body to assist planned economic development and research; and whether, in view of the need for such a body to encourage the commerce, industry, and culture of Scotland, he is prepared to consider the formation of such a body?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut. - Colonel Colville): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to a question on this subject asked by the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) yesterday.

Mr. STEWART: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the growing opinion in Scotland that such a body to be effective must cover the whole of Scotland, and not only the special areas?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If my hon. Friend will read a supplementary answer given yesterday, he will see that that point is being borne in mind.

FREE MEALS (SCHOOL CHILDREN, GREENOCK).

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of school children in Greenock receiving free meals as necessitous cases?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The number of children receiving free meals on the 20th of this month was 163. In addition, about 4,000 receive free milk under a scheme approved under the provisions of the Milk Act, 1934.

INFANTILE MORTALITY (LARGS AND GREENOCK).

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the death rate per 1,000 of children under one year of age in 1935 for the towns of Large and Greenock, respectively?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The death rate per 1,000 births of children under one year of age for the year 1935 was 92 in the burgh of Greenock. The total deaths among such children in the burgh of Largs was only two which represented a death rate of 38 per 1,000 births. These figures are provisional.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Have the Department any information that will guide them as to the difference between the percentages of deaths in these two towns?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Obviously a number of factors have to be considered, particularly housing, and in that regard the Government measures with regard to slum clearance and the efforts being made by this burgh will help.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir CHARLES MacANDREW: Would it not be a good thing for anyone going to Scotland to visit Largs?

SCHOOL CLASSES, GLASGOW,

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of school classes, with 50 or more pupils, in Glasgow; and the number of unemployed school teachers in Glasgow?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: At 31st January, 1936, there were in Glasgow 355 classes with 50 pupils and 369 with over 50 pupils on the roll. I have no information regarding the number of unemployed teachers in particular areas.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Will the Department take steps to deal immediately with this problem, because of the unemployment among school teachers and the crowding of working class school children?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Member is probably aware that a considerable forward movement is taking place in reducing the size of these classes.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Is the Department unaware of the fact that this is a vital problem in this particular area and must be dealt with immediately?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir, the Department is fully aware of it, and in point of fact the situation has very materially improved in the last few years.

HERRING INDUSTRY.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a resolution passed at a mass meeting of Buckie, fishermen on 18th February, and sent from the town clerk of Buckie, concerning the plight of the Scottish herring-fishing industry; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to rescue this industry from extinction?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the


affirmative. The Act passed last year provides a large measure of financial assistance for the herring industry, and as my right hon. Friend stated in his replies on the 18th instant to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) there was a considerable improvement in the results last year, and the Herring Industry Board are considering further measures under the Act.

Mr. BOOTHBOOTHBY: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the financial assistance is by way of loan and not of grant, and that in their present plight the industry cannot possibly afford to borrow any money? In view of the serious condition of the industry, will the Department get into touch immediately with the Herring Board to devise some means of saving this industry from destruction?

Lord APSLEY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that in any trade negotiations entered into with Russia the question of Scottish herring is prominently borne in mind?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: In reply to the first supplementary question, the Herring Board are already closely an touch with the Department in regard to the welfare of the herring industry and have already taken steps which have brought about a considerable improvement. As to the second supplementary question, that point will be borne in mind by the Department concerned.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that Russian purchases of herring from this neighbourhood have made a considerable difference to the conditions of the fishermen?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir, the purchases have gone up considerably under the Agreement which was made by the Government.

Sir A. KN0X: Has not the export of herring to Italy been reduced owing to the policy of the Government?

CEREAL CROPS.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider making arrangements to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the position of the growers of cereals in Scotland and to recommend what action should be taken to improve it?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir; I do not think that the appointment of a Royal Commission would be the most appropriate method of dealing with the matter to which my ion. Friend refers.

Mr. BOOTHBOOTHBY: Then will the Government deal with it?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the wholesale price of oats in England is between 20s. and 30s. a quarter, while the price in Scotland is 13s.; what is the reason for this disparity; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure a better price for the Scottish farmers?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The difference in the price levels is less than my hon. Friend suggest. The average price of oats in England and Wales during the first half of February was 18s. 3d. per quarter as compared with 14s. 6d. in Scotland. The lower rates in Scotland are in the main due to the surplus of supplies over requirements in local markets. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 18th February.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when the Government will be in a position to announce their policy in regard to oats?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir, I can only assure my hon. Friend that it is very actively under our consideration at the present time.

Lord APSLEY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that consumers cannot get oats in the west of England at under 28s. a quarter?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Have there been any complaints from poultry keepers about the price?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir, I think poultry keepers have in general got their feeding stuffs at a very low rate.

RIVERS POLLUTION, FIFE.

Mr. KENNEDY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Fife County Council have decided to proceed with a regional water


supply scheme and a River Leven purification scheme, in accordance with the findings of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Rivers Pollution Prevention of 1933, and in order to meet an urgent need of water supply for domestic and other purposes; if any direct communications have passed between the county authorities and the Scottish Office regarding the schemes; and. if the extent to which the cost of the schemes will be met from national and local funds has been adjusted?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I understand that schemes of the nature referred to are at present under consideration, but I am not aware that the county council have definitely decided to proceed with them. The Department of Health have been in communication with the council regarding the schemes and the council have applied for sanction to the creation of stock to meet the cost of the water scheme. With regard to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend is unable to make a statement.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that the only reason why the authority have not proceeded is because they cannot face the financial burden, and is not this an instance of a case where assistance from the State would really contribute to national development?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot add to my answer but the hon. Member's remarks will be borne in mind.

HEALTH SERVICES (COMMITTEE).

Mr. GUY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made by the Committee on Health Services and at what date their report is likely to be completed?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The committee are at present considering the draft report, but I do not anticipate that it will be possible for the report to be completed and published earlier than the end of April.

FISHERY BOARD (POWERS).

Mr. MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the powers that are possessed by the Fishery Board of Scotland; whether there is any intention of increasing them and, if so, when

the necessary amending regulations will be introduced?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The powers of the Fishery Board for Scotland are conferred by a series of Acts commencing with the Fishery Board (Scotland) Act, 1882, and ending with the Illegal Trawling (Scotland) Act, 1934. It is obviously impossible to state the powers in detail in reply to a question, but they include such matters as regulation of methods of sea fishing, the protection and policing of the sea fisheries, regulation of shell fisheries, branding of cured herring, harbour improvements, scientific research, the collection of statistics and the general superintendence of the salmon fisheries. No extension of the statutory powers of the board is at present proposed.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that in view of the large amount of discontent in the fishing industry it is necessary to revise these Acts in order to see whether something cannot be done to promote prosperity?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If the hon. Member has any definite point which he would like to put before me, I shall be happy to discuss it with him.

PLAYING FILIADS (GLASGOW).

Mr. MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Corporation of Glasgow has been taking over the playing fields of junior football clubs in Glasgow for the extension of housing schemes, and that some of these fields have been used by the clubs for 40 years; and whether, in order to preserve the amenities of their housing schemes, he will arrange for permission to be given to the clubs now threatened with dispossession to continue using the playing fields and club grounds?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Owing to the scarcity of building land, the Corporation of Glasgow have been obliged to acquire ground for housing purposes which, in whole or in part, has been used by football clubs. Most of the clubs are understood to have secured new accommodation elsewhere. The question of providing open spaces and of allowing the clubs to remain in possession pending the development of the ground


with new houses is a matter for the Corporation to decide. I understand that in one case the arrangements made by the Corporation would permit the club to continue its activities for the present.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State for Scotland promised, in replying to an Amendment which I moved when the last Housing Act was under discussion, to get into touch with the corporations in Scotland with a view to getting them to lay out playing fields in connection with their new housing schemes, so that there would be plenty of provision made for amenities?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will look into that point, but in general it is the duty of a local authority to consider the provision of open spaces in the layout of housing schemes.

SECONDARY EDUCATION (LANARKSHIRE).

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the number of children between 14 and 15 years in rural areas in Lanarkshire who are receiving post qualifying education and the distance of the advanced central school from each elementary school; what provision is made, or financial help given, to pupils attending such schools from a distance; and what method is adopted by the education authority, verbal or in writing, to inform parents of the existing facilities in their respective years?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As regards the first part of the question, I am informed by the Lanarkshire Education Authority that the only information available is in respect of those for whom travelling faciilties have been provided by the authority. The number of such children is 428, and the distance involved varies from two to 20 miles. The financial help given in these cases is the provision of travelling facilities or boarding allowances. As to the last part of the question the education authority issue a circular letter to the parents of pupils who are about to be presented at the qualifying examination. This circular explains the nature of the post-primary courses which are available, and parents are advised to consult the headmaster of the primary school on any point on which

they are in doubt as to the facilities for further education.

Mr. RADFORD: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say how many hours work these children have to do after they have travelled so far as 20 miles?

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what grants for maintenance are given to children attending secondary schools in Lanarkshire; how many children from their own area are attending the schools of other authorities; the number of such children for whom a contribution is paid to the authority providing the secondary education for the children; and the distances travelled by pupils having to leave their own areas for advanced education?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am informed by the Lanarkshire Education Authority that maintenance grants of £3 to £6 per annum are given by the authority to pupils in the fourth, fifth and sixth years of the secondary course. As to the second part of the question, no statistics are available. As to the third and fourth parts, the number of pupils attending the schools of other authorities in respect of whom a contribution is paid under section 10 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, is 162, and the distance to be travelled in these cases ranges up to five miles.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the attention of the Department been called to cases like that of a child, say, whose home has been in the Glasgow area but has been shifted 100 yards into Lanarkshire, and who then, instead of being able to attend a secondary school almost next, door, has to travel to Coatbridge, 13 miles away, at a cost of 3s. 6d? Could not expense be saved by adopting some means of getting that child into a nearer school?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I shall be happy to consider soy concrete cases which the hon. Member puts to me.

Mr. HARDIE: I will give them to you.

COAL INDUSTRY.

MINERS' WELFARE COMMITTEE (STAFF).

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary for Mines the total amount of the salaries to be paid when the increased


staff of the Miners' Welfare Committee are on the top scale of what has been approved up to date?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I am sot quite clear how the hon. Member would like this figure calculated. Perhaps he will be good enough to have a word with me.

Mr. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of the staff to be employed by the Welfare Committee according to the latest approved expansion?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The recent expansion in the staff of the Miners' Welfare Committee increased the total number authorised to 110.

ROYALTIES (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS).

Mr. ADAMSON: asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the amount in sterling received by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England for coal-mining royalties and the amount of tonnage of coal upon which the royalty was paid for the last five years, respectively;
(2) the tonnage of coal upon which royalties are paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Wales during the last five years; and the amount of payments made for royalties to them for each of the last five years?

Captain CROOKSHANK: As the answers to these questions involve tables of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate both answers with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The amounts received by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for royalties on coal for the last five years were as follow, namely:


Year ended 31st March:
£


1931
301,400


1932
249,400


1933
232,800


1934
212,000


1935
230,900

Tonnage figures are only available for the counties of Durham and Northumberland, from which counties, however, the bulk of the Commissioners' coal royalties are derived. The tonnage amounts for these counties, together with the amounts of royalty due thereon, are as follow, namely:

Coal worked.
Royalty due thereon.


Year ended 31st March.
Tons.
£


1931
14,225,000
294,700


1932
11,849,000
235,900


1933
11,059,000
217,600


1934
10,713,000
200,000


1935
12,148,000
223,200

The tonnage of coal upon which royalties were paid to the Welsh Church Commission during the five years ending October, 1935, amounted to 1,508,260 tons. The amount of royalties paid to them for each of the five years in question was:



£
s.
d.


Ending 1931
1,590
16
8


Ending 1932
1,838
10
2


Ending 1933
1,222
6
11


Ending 1934
1,694
9
8


Ending 1935
2,341
13
3



£8,687
16
8

CLERICAL WORKERS (WAGES).

Mr. ADAMSON: asked the Secretary for Mines whether any consideration was given during the recent discussions with his Department and the mine-owners, for an advance of wages to those engaged on clerical work in the mines, or if any negotiating machinery exists for this purpose in the interests of the clerical grades?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider setting up some kind of machinery to deal with this matter?

Captain CROOKSHANK: It is a matter for local negotiation between employers and employed, and has nothing to do with the Ministry.

AUTOMATIC GAS DETECTORS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is satisfied with the progress being made under the new Coal Mines Lighting Order, 1935; and how many collieries have installed a complement of automatic gas detectors since the Order came into force?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Regulations relating to firedamp detectors, which came into force on 1st


October, 1935. The type of detector generally installed under these Regulations is the flame safety lamp, and the proper observance of the Regulations has been specially investigated by the inspectors and continues to be watched. An automatic firedamp detector has also been approved under these Regulations, and a considerable number had already been installed at various pits, particularly in the Midlands, before the Regulations came into force, but I am informed that since 1st October, apart from a few repeat or trial orders, no colliery has installed any appreciable number of these detectors.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied with the way the colliery companies are dealing with automatic firedamp detectors?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am not myself satisfied with the progress that has been made in regard to this experiment, and I am in communication with the Mining Association about it.

Mr. D. L. DAVIES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the largest number of detectors are flame lamps and that flame lamps are an unreliable means of detecting firedamp; and in view of that fact, will he not alter the Regulations to insist upon automatic gas detectors?

Captain CROOKSHANK: At present an experiment is being carried out with regard to automatic firedamp detectors.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is it the intention of the Department to appoint the committee which the hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about when these Regulations were before the House?

Captain CROOKSHANK: That will depend upon the kind of reply I get from the Mining Association. It is no good setting up a committee before there is something to investigate.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When communicating with the Mining Association will the hon. and gallant Gentleman emphasise to the mineowners that practically all the lamps in use at Gresford Colliery were shown to be flame lamps?

Mr. HARDIE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform those who have the idea that safety lamps should be of

a kind which allow men to work in gas, that the best are those which detect the presence of gas so that the men can get away before there is an explosion?

AFFORESTATION.

Mr. HOPKIN: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the number of forest units in England, Wales, and Scotland, respectively. with the acreage represented in each case?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The number of forest units in England is 79 comprising 266,000 plantable acres. In. Wales there are 29 units comprising 94,000 plantable acres. In Scotland, 89 units comprising 205,000 plantable acres.

Mr. HOPKIN: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the number of persons employed by the Forestry Commission during the planting season, and during the months when planting is suspended?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The number of persons employed by the Forestry Commissioners varies throughout the year. During the year ended 30th September, 1935, the minimum number 3,015 when planting was suspended, rose to a maximum of 4,020 during the planting season.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the total acreage planted since the Forestry Commission commenced operations; and the total number of young trees planted and growing?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The total acreage planted by the Forestry Commission is 280,000, and the number of young trees growing on this area is approximately 500 millions.

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing the Forestry Commissioners the additional acreage and the additional number of persons to be employed in carrying out the programme of planting, etc., for the special areas?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The Forestry Commissioners' programme for the special areas covers the acquisition and planting


of 200,000 acres within a period of about 10 years. It is estimated that this will provide employment for an average of 2,200 persons per annum.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister when the White Paper on Defence will be published and, secondly, whether he can say what Orders he hopes to get to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be able to make a more definite announcement in regard to the White Paper on Thursday in the announcement on business, than I can to-day. With regard to what Orders we hope to get to-day, I would say the first five, and the Bacon Order.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can we get the White Paper in full time to give an adequate amount of study to it before we come to

the discussion of Defence? May I also ask with regard to the Orders to be taken to-day, whether the Prime Minister expects the House to sit very late—it sat very late last night—and to take a new matter at a very late hour?

The PRIME MINISTER: I certainly hope to give as much time for the White Paper as possible. I am as anxious as any Member of the House can be that that should be done. I hope that it will not be necessary to sit unduly late tonight. I recognise that the House sat rather late last night, but the right hon. Gentleman knows the exigencies of finance. I hope it will be possible to make good progress.

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)"—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 122.

Division No. 57.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Channon, H.
Everard, W. L.


Agnew, Lleut. -Comdr. P. G.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Fildes, Sir H.


Albery, I. J.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Findlay, Sir E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Fleming, E. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Christie, J. A.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.


Amery. Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Ganzonl, Sir J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Clarke, F. E.
Gibson, C. G.


Apsley, Lard
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cobb, Sir C. S.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Assheton, R.
Colman, N. C. D.
Goldie, N. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Granville, E. L.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Cranborne, Viscount
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Bernays, R. H.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Crooke, J. S.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Blair, Sir R.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Grimston, R. V.


Blaker, Sir R.
Cross, R. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Blindell, Sir J.
Crossley, A. C.
Gulnness, T. L. E. B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Culverwell, C. T.
Guy, J. C. M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Davles, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Brass, Sir W.
De Chair, S. S.
Hannah, I. C.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G,
De la B`re, R.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Denville, Alfred
Harbord, A.


Brawn, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Dodd, J. S.
Harvey, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Donner, P. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bull, B. B.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Bullock, Capt. M.
Duggan, H. J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Burghley, Lord
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Holdsworth, H.


Calne, G. R. Hall
Eckersley, P. T.
Holmes, J. S.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hopkinson, A.


Cary, R. A.
Ellis, Sir G.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Emery, J. F.
Howitt, Or. A. B.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Emrys Evans, P. V.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Entwistle, C. F.
Hulbert, N. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Hunter, T.




Hurd, Sir P. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Smithers. Sir W.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Patrick, C. M.
Somerset, T.


Jackson, Sir H.
Peat, C. U.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Petherick, M.
Spender-Clay Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Keeling, E. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Pilkington, R.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Plugge, L, F
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Kimball, L.
Pownall, Sir A. Assheton
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Kirkpatrlck, W. M.
Procter, Major H. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Radford, E. A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Latham, Sir P.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Lees-Jones, J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tate, Mavis C.


Levy, T.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Lewis, O.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lindsay, K. M.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Llewellin, Lieut. -Col. J. J.
Remer, J. R.
Touche, G. C.


Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Train, Sir J.


Loftus, P. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Tree, A. H. L. F.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


MacAndrew, Lt-Col. Sir C. G.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Rowlands, G.
Turton, R. H.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E, A.
Wakefield, W. W.


McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


McKie, J. H.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Warrender, Sir V.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Makins, Brig. Gen. E.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Salt, E. W.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Maxwell, S. A.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Savery, Servington
Windsor-clive, Lleut.-Colonel G.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Scott, Lord William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Shakespeare, G. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Morgan, R. H.
Shaw, Major p. S. (Wavertree)
Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.



Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Smiles, Lieut-Colonel Sir W. D.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Gallacher, W
Mathers, G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Garro-Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.


Adamson, W. M.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)


Alexander, Ht. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Muff, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.


Anderson, F. (Whltehaven)
Hardie, G. D.
Parker, H. J. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Potts, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Bellenger, F.
Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Bevan, A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, Rt Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bromfield, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Cape, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Rowson, G.


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Salter, Dr. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lawson, J. J.
Sexton, T. M.


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Shinwell, E


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Short, A.


Crlpps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Simpson, F. B.


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhlli)
Lunn, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhlthe)


Davies D, L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Day, H.
McGovern, J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dobble, W.
MacLaren, A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Marklew, E.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Walker, J.




Watkins, F. C.
Wilkinson, Ellen
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)



Westwood, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


White, H. Graham
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Whiteley, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)



Second Resolution read a Second time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without amendment.

REFRESHMENT ROOMS AND LAVATORIES.

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of six Lords to join with the Committee of the Commons to consider and report upon the accommodation for refreshment rooms and lavatories in the Palace of Westminster, pursuant to the Commons Message of Tuesday last.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 3rd April, read, and discharged.

Bill withdrawn.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESS), 1934.

Copy presented,—of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good an Excess on the Grants for Public Buildings Overseas for the year ended 31st March, 1935, [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COM MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Acland, Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Miss Cazalet, and Mr. Louis Smith; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Alan Herbert, Mr. Leckie, Mr. Mander, and Sir Frank Sanderson.

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Shops (Sunday Trading Restriction) Bill and the Retail Meat Dealers (Sunday Closing) Bill):Mr. Chater, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. Frankel, Mr. Gluckstein,

Mr. Granville, Sir Patrick Hannon, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Liddall, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Loftus, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Naylor, Mr. Palmer, Sir Isidore Salmon, Mr. Sexton, Sir John Simon, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mr. Storey, Mr. Wells, and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arnold Wilson.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee consists of the following Members, being Members representing Scottish Constituencies, under Standing Order 47 (2):the Lord Advocate, Brigadier-General Sir William Alexander, Mr. Anstruther-Gray, the Duchess of Atholl, Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Mr. Barr, Mr. Boothby, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Chapman, Sir Samuel Chapman, Marquess of Clydesdale, Sir (Godfrey Collins, Lieut.-Colonel Colville, Mr. Davidson, Lord Dunglass, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Erskine Hill, Sir Henry Fildes, Sir Edmund Findlay, Mr. Foot, Mr. Gallacher, Mr. Garro-Jones, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Guy, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Sir Robert Horne, Miss Horsbrugh, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kennedy, Lieut.-Colonel Kerr, Mr. Graham Kerr, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Lindsay, Lieut-Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Captain McEwen, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McKie, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Malcolm Mac Millan, Mr. MacNeill Weir, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Maxton, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. George Morrison, Major Neven-Spence, Mr. PethickLawrence, Captain Ramsay, Lord William Scott, Captain Shaw, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Sir Robert Smith, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Henderson Stewart, Mr. James Stuart, Sir Douglas Thomson, Sir John Train, Mr. Walker, Mr. Watson, Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn, Mr. Welsh, Mr. Westwood, and Mr. Young.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1935.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask you, Sir Dennis, before the Supplementary Estimates are proceeded with, whether it is your intention to take the Estimates in the order in which they are printed on the Paper?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Salary of a Minister without Portfolio.

4.0 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a word of explanation at the outset. As the Committee will see, this is only a token Vote, for, in fact, the increase in passport receipts exceeds to a considerable extent the increase in our expenditure. The position, I understand, is that these increased passport receipts cannot be used by the Foreign Office to cover their increased expenditure without Parliamentary approval, and that is the reason for this Estimate.
The items of the Estimate consist in the main of four, which fall under two heads. The first is salaries due to increased provision of staff required by the political situation abroad. This takes the form of increased diplomatic and clerical staff in the Foreign Office and an increase in overtime paid to the existing very hard-worked clerical staff. A further item is the increased staff for the Passport Office, but this, of course, is more than covered by the increased receipts of the Passport Office. A third item is additional expenses in connection with

the Naval Conference. As the Conference is being held in London His Majesty's Government are responsible, in accordance with the precedent set in 1930, for the cost of the secretariat, which consists of a staff of 20 persons. If the Conference had been held abroad the Government, would have had to meet travelling and subsistence charges which would have been of a similar or larger amount. It is impossible to forecast the duration of the Conference, and the provision for which we have asked here is only to the end of the financial year, 31st March.
A further item of increased expenditure is on telephones which have been required both by the situation abroad and by the Naval Conference. This item consists mainly of calls to Geneva and to embassies and legations abroad. An expenditure of £200 has been required for telephones for the Naval Conference. There are, however, I am happy to say, certain savings which I am able to report. There is, first, the saving on the salary of the Minister without Portfolio, owing to my personal eclipse in that capacity. There is also the considerable increase in the sums received in the fees from passports, and these two items together more than cover the increased expenditure which I have mentioned. Perhaps I should explain that the increased receipts from passports are due to our having under-estimated the increased demand for passports to travel abroad in the latter half of last year. The figures for August and September greatly exceeded our expectations. In the circumstances I have only to ask for a token Vote of £10 to enable the sums I have mentioned to be used to cover the expenditure which has been incurred.
Perhaps before I sit down I might, for the convenience of the Committee, say a few words about the position of the Naval Conference, which arises on one of these Votes. As the Committee know, negotiations between the delegations are still in progress; actually we are engaged in active negotiation now. I am sure, therefore, that the Committee will understand when I ask them in these circumstances not to press me to give details of the position which the Conference has reached. The position in the Conference is that my colleagues have agreed not to divulge officially the details of such decisions as we have arrived at, pending a


final agreement on the other points which are still under discussion. In such circumstances I know the Committee will understand when I ask that I should not be pressed to divulge what others have not divulged. Moreover, as hon. Members opposite and particularly the former First Lord will recall, it is our experience that it is unwise during a Conference to make premature publications which sometimes have the effect of destroying negotiations actually in progress. That has certainly been my experience more than once and no doubt the experience of others in this House. Therefore, I ask again that the Committee will not press me to make a statement on the condition of the negotiations at this moment. I will gladly give an assurance that as soon as a favourable moment arrives I shall take the Committee into fullest confidence about the outcome of the Conference; and the Committee may be equally sure that I shall do my best to hasten and further the moment when my lips will be unsealed.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. AMMON: I propose to emulate the right hon. Gentleman in being brief, but I wish to put one or two points that arise on this Vote. While everyone en this side of the Committee understands the position of delicacy that naturally arises when a Conference is in being, at the same time it is a little difficult for the House of Commons to be asked to abrogate entirely the right to be told what is the Government's policy and what the Government are doing. I would remind the Foreign Secretary that as recently as the 4th of this month my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) asked the Prime Minister whether it was the intention of the Government to publish a White Paper in order that the House might be kept somewhat informed as to the policy being pursued by the Government at this Conference. A Noble Lord in another place also pressed the same point. Each received an answer in the negative. What are the rights of the Commons in matters like this? It is all very well for the Foreign Secretary to come here and plead that negotiations are likely to be embarrassed if questions are put and he is pressed to divulge what is taking place behind closed doors, but it is surely asking too much of a democratic assembly to

say that it should know nothing about what is happening until the whole thing is a fait accompli, when we have no possibility of judging or discussing or giving advice as to what we desire in these matters. I would press at any rate that even if we are not to be informed as to the details, this House has a right to press for some information as to what are the Government's intentions and policy in this particular matter.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that at the 1930 Conference, which was presided over by the present Lord President of the Council, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, then First Lord of the Admiralty, published within a few days after the assembly a White Paper in order that the House might be informed, as far as was thought necessary, regarding the procedure. What is the position now? From day to day we see reports of some sort or another that leak out and appear in the Press, sometimes in other countries and not in this country, and we do not know whether they have arty basis of authority behind them. These reports disturb the public mind and must keep Members of the House of Commons unsettled if they are concerned about such things, and yet when we ask questions here we are met with a point blank refusal of information. I suggest that it is rather too much to expect a House of Commons to sit down under that.
It seems to me not at all in accordance with the fitness of things that in so important a matter as the Naval Conference now in progress we are left to raise on a mere side issue such as is contained in this Supplementary Vote, the points that we wish to raise. This is the only opportunity that the House of Commons has yet had of raising this particular question. Some of us are a little disturbed in our minds as to exactly what policy the Government are putting before the Conference. I have here quotations from statements by the naval representatives of the other Governments taking part in the Conference, in which they express themselves as in favour of limitation of armaments both quantitative and qualitative, but when I look at the proposals, as presented by our own First Lord, so far as one can see they give us some cause for concern, for they seem to be suggestions emanating from this side for an increase in armaments, in face of


the expressed opinion, published in the Press, of the desire of others to arrive at some sort of agreement with a view to limitation of armaments.
As far as we can see the capital ships proposed in 1933 were to be of a maximum size of 25,000 tons with 12-inch guns. As far as information reaches us the British proposal now is for capital ships of 35,000 tons with 14-inch maximum guns. I need only quote that as an indication of the right of this House to feel a little disturbed about what seems to be a direct lead by the Government for an increase in armaments, in spite of the explanations and the exhortations we have had from the Government Front Bench to trust the League, to put our faith in it and to press forward for general disarmament. Is it too much to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what proposals the British Government are making with regard to capital ships, both as to size or tonnage' of ships and weight of armament? Is it too much to ask whether or not there has been any departure from the agreement with regard to cruisers?

Sir PATRICK HANNON: On a ponit of Order. Are we discussing the Navy Vote or discussing the expenditure incurred in connection with the sittings of the Naval Conference? Surely it is hardly competent for the hon. Gentleman to raise these questions on a Vote of £4,500 for the expenses of the Naval Conference. The hon. Gentleman is raising the whole question of naval policy.

The CHAIRMAN: I was listening to the hon. Gentleman with a good deal of attention. I regard this Vote as one for what is in the nature of a new service, though a very limited service. So far I have not found it necessary to stop the hon. Gentleman, but no doubt he will bear in mind what I have to say. He cannot discuss the merits or otherwise of particular types of ships and must limit his remarks strictly to the Naval Conference.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: As you have said, Sir Dennis, this is a new service, and in any case this is the only opportunity we have to deal with the cost of a very important Naval Conference. We submit that we have a perfect right to question the Foreign Secretary as to why we have not been supplied with information regarding the proposals made to

that conference and what has been done with them. What right have Members of the House of Commons, when asked to vote money, if they cannot ask questions with regard to such matters?

The CHAIRMAN: That seems to be in entire agreement with what I said.

Mr. AMMON: What we seek, on the very first opportunity that we have had, is to try to ascertain exactly what policy is being followed at the conference and for what purpose we are voting this money. We get no information other than unauthorised rumours published in the Press and, when questions are asked, we are denied authoritative information. That is bound to arouse a good deal of disquiet both among the public and Members of the House. Can we have any information as to whether the Government are making any definite proposals with regard to capital ships and whether there is to be any increase in the total tonnage with regard to cruisers? There has been an outcry as to the insufficiency of the number of cruisers. That is very much determined by the tonnage of the particular cruisers that are built. Under the London agreement we were allowed a cruiser strength of roughly 275,000 tons. That gave us about 35 cruisers. At present the Government are building cruisers of 8,500 tons, varied here and there by vessels of 5,300 tons. Unless some explanation is given, an entirely false impression is created as to our cruiser strength, because agreement was come to at the London Conference as to total tonnage, and it was left to particular countries to decide how they would use that tonnage. It is on some of these points that we require information.
There is another thing upon which we ought to be informed, particularly having regard to the discussions that have taken place in the last day or two. Is regard being had at the conference to the fresh development of thought and opinion with regard to armaments, and with regard to international co-operation in the matter? In short, have we gone into the conference with the same mentality as in the days of Nelson, having regard only to our isolated position, with every other nation viewed as a potential enemy? Are we building up our armaments on those lines or is the discussion taking place with a view to


possible co-operation between the nations? Are we doing anything to build towards a real co-operative and collective force with a view to collective action in regard to disputes that might emerge between nations? If that is the position, it might do a great deal to allay disquiet in the minds of people here and in other countries. An announcement to that effect would not embarrass the conference but it would rather call forth an expression of opinion which would strengthen their hands if the right hon. Gentleman could inform us that discussions are taking place along those lines so as to diminish the weight of armaments that it is felt necessary to build in the years to come, and that we can have a progressive reduction in armaments because there is increasing confidence between nations and nations.
There is a tremendous weight of opinion in the views expressed by a number of people who are taking part in the Conference and some who remain outside. Also, if one is to take any cognisance of the Prime Minister's own speech just before the Conference, that would seem to be the goal to which we should all be steering. One is labouring under a handicap because one does not want to do anything to embarrass the discussions, but one must firmly maintain the right of Parliament to be kept informed of what is happening, that we should not be treated as though we did not count and as though the British Navy was the private possession of the British Government and they alone had any right to any knowledge as to what was taking place. It is a matter that concerns us, and concerns the Opposition as much as those on the Government Benches.[Interruption.]When the right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear," that does not help us very much. If he is going to say that owing to the delicate situation it is not expedient that the House should be informed, one has the right to ask why it is not expedient. After all, this is the seat of government and we have a right not to be treated as people who are not to be trusted or who have no opinions on these matters. We have a right to be kept informed, as has been done on other occasions, as to what is taking place, and, while not pressing for details, we have a right, which I press on the right hon. Gentleman, to be

informed as to what is the considered policy now being discussed on behalf of the Government at the Conference.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I am not going to complain of the right hon. Gentleman saying, "Hear, hear," because I gather that he is under some kind of trappist vow which prevents any informative words passing his lips, but I should like to know what is the exact extent of this self-denying ordinance. As far as I could gather, it was the decisions so far arrived at. I can understand that, because progress made in consultation with other Powers might well be considered as partly their property as well as ours, and therefore it could not be revealed except by general consent. But I think the question as to proposals that have been made on our side is in a very different category. That is our property. Those who are putting forward proposals are doing so on behalf of the British nation, and it is a matter of very great importance that we should know what is happening. If the undertaking has gone so far that we are not even allowed to know what attitude our own Government has taken, we cannot ask the right hon. Gentleman to break his word, but I would urge upon him the extreme undesirability of entering into such undertakings, if that is what in fact has been done.
We have paid for our seats in the theatre and are not allowed to look at what is happening on the stage. That is an extremely undesirable state of affairs. If the Government on all these matters had announced a policy clearly to the nation, at the General Election let us say, and had given the House and the country reason to suppose that they had never deviated by a hair's breadth from the path which it set itself, curiosity would be allayed, but we have seen that changes of policy of a most startling kind can happen over night, and it is quite natural that we should desire. most particularly in a matter which is going to affect the taxpayer and affect the future of the nation most profoundly, to have all available information at the earliest possible moment. The questions asked by the hon. Gentleman who opened the discussion were most pertinent questions, and it is a, most undesirable state of affairs that the right hon. Gentleman, while most


desirous to be helpful, is utterly unable to say anything except a few reassuring sounds.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: There is one part of this Estimate which I very heartily welcome, and that is the increased cost of the staff and offices at Geneva. As a. rule, Government representatives congratulate themselves on having cut down expenditure on the League of Nations—a very false view I should have thought.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting on to the next Vote.

Mr. MANDER: I am dealing with A (a)"Increased provision necessitated by the political situation abroad."

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that has anything to do with Geneva. I think the hon. Member will see that his remarks apply really to the League of Nations, mentioned in the next Vote.

Mr. MANDER: I understood the Foreign Secretary to say it included calls to Geneva.

The CHAIRMAN: That was telephone calls.

Mr. MANDER: Then I base my case on telephone calls. I am glad to know that an increased Estimate for such a purpose has been brought forward. It is in very striking contrast with the hundreds of millions asked for on the other side of national affairs, but it is something to see that use is being made, even to a limited extent, of the international organisation at Geneva. I should like to stress one point made by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench who asked, with regard to the Naval Conference, whether attention was being given to the collective aspect of naval armaments. The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that there were various kinds of national defence and he had come down on the side of collective security. Obviously, if that is so, it is necessary that at a Naval Conference of this kind very careful attention should be given to the possibility of navies working together, of having perhaps joint manoeuvres or co-operating for the purpose of carrying out collective security. Has that side of the work been overlooked?

4.29 p.m.

Sir P. HANNON: I rise to ask whether the Naval Conference is taking into consideration the dominant fact that the British Navy down the ages has been the greatest influence for peace in the world? When the hon. Member talks of co-ordinations of naval strength in relation to collective security, I should like to point out that the British Navy has borne the whole burden of preserving peace among the nations for all these years. The only guarantee of security that we can depend upon is our power at sea. I hope that nothing will take place in the proceedings of the Naval Conference such as the hon. Member anticipates, or we may soon have no Navy at all.

Mr. MANDER: Not at all.

Sir P. HANNON: I did not refer to the hon. Gentleman, but to a much more distinguished statesman sitting in front of him. I hope that in the proceedings of the Naval Conference the significance of the British Navy will be kept in mind in the preservation of peace as the only instrument to give effect to decisions arrived at by the League of Nations. I hope that it will have the full attention of the Government and that nothing will be done to weaken its power to discharge the great obligations resting upon it in view of the present international situation.

4.31 p.m.

Miss WILKINSON: I had not dared to make a speech, but this atmosphere of general approval of the Foreign Secretary and collaboration with the Government makes it possible to ask the Foreign Secretary a few questions about the £2,850 for the cost of additional staff and extra pay necessitated by the political situation abroad. Practically the whole of the discussions we have here seem to assume that the situation abroad will necessitate vastly increased armaments, increases in the Navy, Army and the Air Service, and that it is something which simply cannot be helped because we are, as always in this country, on the side of the angels. The British Navy has never fired a shot except for loving kindness of everybody, and we have collected our Empire partly in a fit of absentmindedness, and partly by going out and getting the countries of the world to


bestow upon themselves the blessings of British rule. It is very comforting except for the people who may be suffering under us.
We have this enormous Empire, and a Navy, Army and Air Force, and all the rest of it and the net result, apparently, is that in 1936 we are on the verge of war. Almost every discussion in this House seems to bring out that fact. I want to ask whether, in connection with this cost of additional staff and extra pay necessitated by the political situation abroad, the Foreign Secretary has engaged extra staff in order to consider whether there is any way out of the political situation into which we are drifting. The amazing complacency of hon. Gentlemen opposite was beautifully pictured by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), who looks a monument of complacency. The British Empire has done very well for him. The young men of the British Empire went out and fought, yet there is the hon. Member sitting completely complacent considering the next war, when, at any rate, he will not have to fight. There are a large number of young men watching events and wondering whether anything is to be considered which will in any way suggest that we are not going to drift into war.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady has gone a little wide of the subject under discussion. She had better come back to the Vote which is before the Committee.

Miss WILKINSON: That is why I feel that it is so important to learn at the present moment from the Foreign Secretary whether, in regard to the £2,850 which we are discussing, there are people engaged in advising him not what is to be the decision of the Naval Conference, and whether we are to be killed by 16-inch or 18-inch guns or from what kind of poison gas we are to suffer in the next war, but whether, included in the additional Foreign Office staff, there are those who are considering the problem as to how we can avoid the next war? That is what the country wants to know.

The CHAIRMAN: I must definitely rule that matter out of order as not being appropriate to this Vote.

Miss WILKINSON: I bow to your Ruling with the utmost respect, but I find difficulty in this House because the question of how to avoid the next war seems to be one of the subjects which are ruled out of order as irrelevant.

The CHAIRMAN: This is definitely irrelevant to the matter which the Committee are now discussing, and I must ask the hon. Lady to refrain from discussing it further.

Miss WILKINSON: Certainly, I am most concerned to obey your Ruling in every possible way. I feel that I have really raised the point that I wanted to raise with the Foreign Secretary, and I give him warning that I propose to raise it on every single Vote or issue we have before us.

The CHAIRMAN: This is not the right time for the hon. Member to give notice of her intention to raise something which is quite irrelevant.

Miss WILKINSON: But I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary whether there is in the Foreign Office—that is surely his job—some Department dealing with this matter?

The CHAIRMAN: This is not the Vote of the salary of the Foreign Secretary and it is not the occasion on which the hon. Member can ask him about the departments in the Foreign Office. The hon. Lady must heed my previous warning and confine herself to matters which are before the Committee, or, I am afraid, I shall have to ask her to resume her seat.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask for your guidance, Sir Dennis, on this matter, because I am most anxious to keep, in the most precise degree, within any Rules of Order which you can conceivably lay down. We are, after all, making provision for the cost of additional staff necessitated by the political situation abroad, and I put it to you, with the greatest respect, that surely we have a right to ask what this additional staff are to do? May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether, as right through these particular Votes, and particularly in this one, we are making preparations for staffs, there is some part of his Department considering these problems? Having made that point. I leave it with you, Sir Dennis, and the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. BAXTER: From the opposite side of the Committee we hear constant references to the necessity for combining with the other nations of the League in regard to naval action and in collective defence. Surely, hon. Members opposite must realise that there are only six great naval powers. They are America, Japan, Germany, Italy, France and Britain, and of those naval powers only France and Britain may be said to be 100 per cent. in the League. The French themselves would take a long time before the material part of their Fleet could be mobilised.

The CHAIRMAN: I would warn the hon. Member that he is getting out of order. I gather that he intends his remarks to come under the Vote for the purposes of the Naval Conference.

Mr. BAXTER: I beg your pardon, Sir Dennis. I apologise as a new Member for having transgressed through perhaps not being entirely familiar with the procedure of the House. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will bear in mind our peculiar requirements and not be deluded by such phrases as collective security.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions about these telephone calls. Can he tell the Committee whether, when Ministers go abroad, their telephone calls back to this country on official business are charged under this Vote? Are they asked to take with them a list of telephone numbers of responsible Ministers whom they have left behind so that, if necessary, they may get into touch with their colleagues? Are they asked to give to responsible colleagues at home, when they goon business in relation to the Foreign Office, the telephone numbers where they can be found abroad, so that even on Sunday it may be possible for the Prime Minister, if necessary, to get into touch with the Foreign Secretary, and not have his digestion spoilt at breakfast on Monday morning by receiving a totally unexpected letter telling him that something has been done which, while the Foreign Secretary thinks that it is right, the Prime Minister finds, several days later, is wrong.
The Lord President of the Council assured us this afternoon that the Council of Research tries to bring all the resources

of modern science to the defence forces, and one had hoped that the Foreign Office was a real defence force. It is a very great pity that at critical times in recent months the power of the Foreign Secretary to get into touch with his colleagues by means of the telephone was not known. It may be that he is not allowed to charge his calls from Paris to this country on the Public Vote, and he might not have taken the precaution of having sufficient French currency in his possession to ring up the Prime Minister. I wish to be as lenient as possible in any judgment which I pass upon any one who is not now in office, but there should be the most strict instruction given in future that the telephone is available and is to be used, and I hope that it will be possible to supply Ministers with a list of the numbers in this country with which they should keep in touch, and that even when they are in Paris it would not be too indiscreet for them to give the numbers at which they can be obtained.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I want to try and keep within the rules of order for two or three minutes. I should very much like to endorse what the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said. Nobody in this House would for a moment begrudge the Government any kind of telephone facilities between London, Paris and Geneva in future, and the greater the expenditure the more, I am sure, we should all be pleased. It could not amount to very much, and it would do nothing but good. There is one point in connection with the Naval Conference to which I should like to draw attention. No one wants the details of the proposals before the Conference at this stage, but in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said many of us on this side believe that the London Conference of 1930 was very disastrous from the point of view of this country, particularly as it caused us to build at enormous expense a great number of cruisers which are now completely and absolutely obsolete, lacking in armour, of great size, and enormous targets, with guns of a calibre which could not stand up to those of foreign cruisers built at the same period.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Can he point to any single cruiser built as a


result of the Conference of 1930 which answers to that charge? Is he thinking of the Washington Treaty and the cruisers built as a result of that Conference His remarks certainly do not apply to any cruisers built as a result of the 1930 Conference.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that we are now getting perilously near to what I have said would not be in order.

Mr. BOOTHBY: In those circumstances I have no intention of answering my right hon. Friend. I would merely say that I believe I am perfectly right in what I said, and on a more suitable occasion I should like to go through the list of ships built after the London Conference and to show how inferior they are to the ships of other Powers built in the same period. Many of us have been very anxious about the Naval Agreement with Germany, and I should like the Secretary of State to give the Committee a general assurance that whatever else may be the result of the present Naval Conference it will ensure that the ships to be constructed in the future for our fleet will be at least as up-to-date and modern and with as heavy armament and as great a calibre of guns as those constructed by any other Power.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in their suggestion with regard to the telephone. I think the conclusion come to by the Government as a result of the regrettable instance of the telephone call which did not take place, was that the telephonic method of carrying on diplomacy by our Foreign Ministers running across to the Continent and having casual conversations with Foreign Ministers abroad, was not good. It was too irresponsible, and we have decided to revert to the more solid and sedate way of making our representations in writing through the Ambassadors in all appropriate cases. On the whole, that is a more responsible way of doing things than the casual method of telephone conversation.

The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members are very clever in their attempts at confining their remarks within the limits of order, but I am afraid that the hon. Member

is now becoming rather bold. There are certain things which we must not discuss on this Vote. Even if there is no Minister at Geneva there may be some secretary or clerk there who may use the telephone.

Mr. MAXTON: Yes, but we are discussing a very substantial increase in the cost of telephone calls for foreign affairs during the period which covers the regrettable incident to which I have referred. Surely, when we are asked to pass a Supplementary Estimate for increased telephone costs, we are entitled to discuss alternative ways of doing the same business, which might at one and the same time be more responsible and less costly. That is what is meant by the House of Commons keeping control over finance.

The CHAIRMAN: I am very anxious not to disagree with the hon. Member, but I think that, on reflection, he will agree with me that, However true what he has said may be, this is not the occasion on which we can discuss the policy of Ministers going abroad.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Would it be possible for us to suggest to the Minister that £600 of additional expenditure in telephone calls is excessive and that this expenditure might have been avoided had Ministers stayed at home and conducted their negotiations in the normal way?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is putting a hypothetical point, apparently arising on his intended speech which it is not yet his turn to make.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to pursue the matter any further, in view of your Ruling, but I would remind the Foreign Secretary, when he is being pressed by my two hon. Friends to adopt telephone diplomacy, that the considered opinion of his leader was that that kind of diplomacy should be discarded in favour of the more sedate methods of the past.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I would remind the hon. Member that we were not arguing in favour of telephone diplomacy but for more inter-communication between Members of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. MAXTON: I think the decision come to by the Go N eminent was that


His Majesty's Ministers should stay at home instead of going dancing all over the Continent. The Prime Minister wanted to keep his children round about him. However, I will leave that point and turn to another, on which I think the Government are entitled to our congratulations. I have never been one to withhold congratulations even from a Government to which I was opposed when I thought that they deserved to be congratulated. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the success of the device by which the expenses of the Naval Conference are more than met by the fees that the persons attending the conference had to pay to secure attendance. I think that is a sound idea, and I hope that the policy will be further developed. Perhaps they may even go to the length of financing the next war by selling the film rights, or something of that sort. It is a sound idea and I do not withhold my meed of praise to the Foreign Secretary for having devised it.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. EDEN: I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has given us credit for a Scottish quality which the Foreign Office does not possess. The fees to which he refers are not fees for foreigners coming into this country but additional passport charges for people leaving the country. I should like to bring about what measure of appeasement I can between the points of view of hon. Members with regard to the use of telephones in diplomacy. I would point out that this Vote has nothing to do with the Diplomatic Service, and these telephone charges are the charges for calls from London to foreign countries and not fees for calls from foreign capitals to us in London.
I make no complaint that the House should want more information than I have been able to give them regarding the Naval Conference. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was fully justified in quoting from what took place in 1930 and stating that prior to or during the Conference information was given to the House. I have had some experience of conferences and my view is that if you wish to obtain results it is not the best method of securing them to lay White Papers while you are in the course of negotiations. At the beginning of the present Conference an arrangement was

entered into, which has been loyally kept by everybody at the Conference, that during the course of the Conference no statement should be made as to the progress which was being recorded but that at the close of the Conference a full statement would be possible. That was agreed to 'between all those attending the Conference. In that there is no novel departure. The novelty of the departure would be to cut up the body in order to look at it before you know Whether it is going to survive or not. The normal procedure is to reserve a statement until the close of the Conference, whether it proves successful or otherwise.
At the moment I can make two statements to the Committee in reply to the specific questions put to me. We are at this moment trying to get agreement, and my Noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has for many months put in a great deal of effort to try and bring about a successful result of the Conference. Generally, the objective of His Majesty's Government is to reduce the size and the cost of ships of all categories. We are also insisting, as before, on qualitative limitation, because we regard that as indispensable if the results of the Conference are to be wholly satisfactory. I hope that with that explanation the Committee will appreciate that I have said as much as I can without doing something which I know the Committee would not wish me to do, and that is either to break faith with the delegates at the Conference or embarrass this Vote. I suggest that what we are concerned with is not the result of the Conference but whether or not we can have a Conference at all. If the Committee are in agreement on that, I 'hope they will now allow me to have the Vote.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We have had a long Debate, with every speaker wondering whether or not he was in order. That has not been due to the Ruling of the Chair, because you have been strictly following what has been the practice on what has been little more than a token Vote, but it is due to the fact that the Government were unwilling to go beyond what the Foreign Secretary has given to us in the way of information. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman in which he suggests that the issue of a White Paper either immediately before


or during a conference is not necessarily conducive to the success of the conference but may be likely to retard progress and success, is not our experience on this side in regard to naval matters. The very precedent which we have quoted of the White Paper isued in February, 1930, is surely proof of that. We did at that conference secure complete Agreement between the three major naval Powers, and in the case of two other Powers we secured complete agreement on technical questions which had held up for so long the naval affairs side of the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament at Geneva. Therefore, the actual issue of the White Paper by the Labour Government in 1930, far from hindering us, was a great help to the conference and a great assistance to its success. The truth about the Government and the present conference in London is that they have not a very easy conscience. They have not been anything like as anxious for the success of the conference in the way of ultimate disarmament as some previous Governments have been.

Mr. EDEN: indicated dissent.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is our impression. If the right hon. Gentleman will not give us the information for which we ask, when we are asked to vote £4,500 for the cost of the conference, he cannot expect us to come to any other conclusion. If you take his statement that the only announcements which have been made are the announcements, by agreement, I take it, in Press bulletins, I must refer to the announcement in the "Times" on the 7th February and ask whether these statements are true. It says there:
The outcome of these divergencies of view, which were revealed in last year's preliminary conversations, was the figures adopted last week by the conference as the basis from which the sub-cornmitee's discussions should begin. These figures were:
Capital ships—35,000 tons and 14 inch guns with a possible reduction of 2,000 or 3,000 tons.
Aircraft Carriers.—22,000 tons and 6.1 inch guns.
A-class cruisers.—No more to be built during the term of the Treaty.
B-class cruisers.—7,500 to 8,000 tons and 6.1 inch guns.
Submarines.2 — 2,000 tons and 5.1 inch guns."
Are those statements correct? If the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the Committee just now is to be taken that you have been making statements through the Press by agreement with the Powers, are those statements correct? Is that an official bulletin I think we are right in suggesting that the Government have not been too anxious about getting on with disarmament if that is the kind of treaty that has been agreed to, for we have no information from the Government at all as to what their proposals in the conference have been. Here we are. We shall be, within a few days' time, arriving at the period of the discussion of the fighting Services Estimates, at perhaps one of the most important points in such a discussion in the whole of our post-War history. We have not the slightest reliable information at this moment as to what is happening at this important conference of the at present four principal Naval Powers, Japan having left.
I think it is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and I do not think the Foreign Secretary can possibly be justified in asking us to give approval to this Vote to day without giving us, and through us the country itself, a much more full and frank statement. I must say, therefore, that I protest very strongly against this procedure, because I am anxious that it should not be regarded as a precedent in regard to subsequent conferences. I am very anxious to safeguard that. If any such future conferences come, we must have not only the right to demand, but the right to get, adequate and proper information, before the conference or during it, as to what the Government's policy is and as to which afterwards we shall be asked to be committed.

Sir P. HANNON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that before the Naval Estimates are submitted to this House, a White Paper is issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty fully explaining the Government's policy.

CLASS II.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £57,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the


31st day of March, 1936, for a contribution towards the expenses of the League of Nations and for other expenses in connection therewith, including United Kingdom Representation before the Permanent Court of International Justice and a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of Settlement of Assyrians of Iraq.

5.5 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): I rise to recommend to the Committee a Supplementary Estimate in connection with the work of the League of Nations. The question with which we are concerned is one which I should like, without wearying the Committee, to deal with in a certain amount of detail. There is only one large item, and that is the one in connection with the Assyrians, a question on which I think the Committee ought to have full information. I refer to a Grant-in-Aid of £60,000, which represents a first instalment of a maximum contribution of £250,000 to be made by His Majesty's Government towards the League scheme in aid of the Assyrians. The scheme is, as the Committee is probably already aware, a most interesting international innovation. It is an attempt to effect, under the auspices of the League, a final solution of a problem which concerns more than one country, a problem which, apart from its political aspect, has a strong religious and humanitarian interest and can, for a variety of reasons, only be solved by corporate effort.
The Assyrian question has been before Parliament at various times since the War, but it has not been under discussion by the House of Commons for a considerable time, and I should like, therefore, to give the House, very briefly, some account of the historical events which have led up to the present position. Practically the whole of the Assyrian community with which we are to-day concerned came originally from Turkey. It has been, and is still, suggested in certain quarters that this community was brought into the world war by His Majesty's Government and that that Government have therefore a very special responsibility for them. This is in fact not the truth. They were brought into the world war in aid of the forces, not of Great Britain, but of Imperial Russia, and Great Britain had no independent dealings of any kind with this community until two to three years later when the

battered remnants of the community who were retiring before a mass attack of Turks, Kurds, and Persians, following the break-up of the Russian front in 1917, were, in 1918, saved from complete annihilation by British forces and brought to safety within the borders of what is now Iraq.
Having rescued the Assyrians in this manner, the British Government continued to help them in Iraq, purely from humanitarian motives, over a long period of time and at very considerable cost. For several years they were housed and fed in camps by the British Government and at the expense of the British Government. I think that point should be stressed, because there seems to be in various quarters an idea that this £250,000 which His Majesty's Government are now being asked to contribute towards the scheme is the only payment that they have ever made in support of the Assyrians. That is not so. After the War the Assyrians themselves were anxious to return to their own homes, and Great Britain felt bound to do, and in fact did do, her very utmost to assist them in that matter. In order to meet their desires, the Government tried to obtain, in the peace settlement with Turkey, the incorporation within Iraqi territory of the Hakkiari district—that is the original home of the Assyrians —so that they might be established there as an autonomous community under the sovereignty of Iraq. The Treaty of Lausanne left the Turco-Iraqi frontier to be settled by friendly agreement between Great Britain and Turkey and, if that were not possible, by the Council of the League. It was precisely on this point of the settlement of the Assyrians in the Hakkiari district that negotiations with Turkey broke down, and the matter therefore came before the Council of the League in 1925.
At the meeting of the Council His Majesty's Government made it perfectly clear that it was their view that unless the Hakkiari territory were included within Iraq, all hopes of a separate homogeneous existence for the Assyrians would be destroyed, for it would be impossible to find in Iraq suitable territory for the settlement of a unified Assyrian community. In spite, however, of the earnest pleadings of the British Government, the decision of the council was that the Hakkiari territory must be included within


the frontiers of Turkey. This decision, in the view of His Majesty's Government, is the cause of all the unfortunate events which have happened since. I submit, therefore, that it cannot be argued by anybody that Great Britain can he held responsible for what has happened since 1925, for if our advice had been taken at that time, it is probable that the question might very well have been solved long ago.
The question since that date has, the Committee knows, been very largely one of land settlement. Every effort was made by the British authorities in Iraq, during the exercise of their Mandate in that country, to settle the community as favourably as possible, and when the Mandate ended in 1932, all except some 300 families had found homes. For various reasons, however, the Assyrians were discontented with their lot in Iraq, and this discontent led to those tragic events in 1033 which will be fresh in the memory of Members of the Committee. It has been frequently contended since that date that His Majesty's Government must incur a special responsibility in this matter because it was on their recommendation that Iraq was admitted to membership of the League and that the Mandate was ended, but it has been equally repeatedly made clear that our responsibility in this matter was limited to saying that Iraq was, in our opinion, generally suitable for membership, and I do hope that no further attempts will be made to invest those simple facts with assumptions of continuing responsibility for Iraq's action. His Majesty's Government had no reason to suppose that all would not go well. At any rate, the lamentable events to which I have referred, which we all regretted and continue to regret, made it obvious to the League, which was called upon to deal with this question as a minority problem, that some other solution must be found if the problem was not to be the constant cause of friction in the Middle East.
In response to the request of the Iraqi Government, and influenced by petitions from the Assyrians themselves, the Council of the League made strenuous efforts to find some other area in which the Assyrians could be finally and peacefully settled as a community. Various parts of the world were explored. It was

suggested that they should be emigrated to Brazil, but though at first the chances seemed good, eventually difficulties came in the way which made that project impossible. There was a further proposal that they should be emigrated to British Guiana, but there again it turned out that the scheme was not practicable. Finally, after negotiations with the French Government, a place was found for their settlement within the State of Lattakia among the territories under French Mandate in the Levant. The district selected for permanent settlement is a plain known as the Ghab in the middle course of the River Orontes, and the Grant-in-Aid which is now before the Committee forms part of the machinery for putting this proposal into practice.
It is calculated that, the transfer of the Assyrians to the Ghab area will cost the sum of £1,146,000, of which sum £826,000 will be spent on the reclamation of the area and £320,000 on settlement. I should perhaps explain why the provision for reclamation work takes up such a large part of the Estimate. The Committee of the League Council which is responsible for dealing with this subject decided to concentrate on settlement in the Ghab area, since, despite its relatively high initial cost, it represents the only satisfactory scheme, both from the political point of view and from the point of view of the security and the ultimate economic prosperity of the Assyrians. The Ghab area was in antiquity a fertile region of great prosperity, but owing to its present marshy condition expensive reclamation works have been necessary to make it suitable for settlement. The collection of a sum of £1,146,000, as the Committee will realise, is not a very easy matter. The French mandated territories in the Levant offer a sum of £380,000—

Mr. TINKER: To whom did the territories belong before they became French?

Viscount CRANBORNE: They have been under French mandate since the War. This is the largest individual contribution on account of their interest in the scheme, which when completed will affect not only the Assyrians but to some extent the prosperity of the existing population. The League is giving a sum of £86,000. In addition two nations are making independent contributions. They


are Iraq and Great Britain. The interest if the Iraq Government in the problem will be obvious to everyone. It must be to their interest to find a solution to this problem which has for years been a source of great trouble to them. I now come to our own contribution of £250,000, equal to the contribution of the Iraq Government. The account which I have given of the history of this question will have shown its complexity, its international character and the special concern of the League as a whole. For the reasons which I have stated His Majesty's Government cannot accept the view that we have a special responsibility.

Mr. RILEY: What contribution is the French Government making? Is it of territory or in money?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The French mandated territories are making a contribution of £380,000.

Mr. DALTON: As the Under-Secretary is dealing with statistics may I ask whether there is not a residuary sum, some part of the estimated cost, which is not covered by the various sums paid by Governments and the League? Can he tell us what that sum is and whether it is to be raised by private charity, or in what fashion?

Viscount CRANBORNE: There is a residuary sum of £180,000 which remains after these contributions have been paid, and it is hoped to collect some portion of this sum by private subscription. The amount which will be collected depends on the success of those who are collecting, and it is hoped that the remainder of the sum may be raised by temporary credits and repaid, when the Assyrians are settled, by the community themselves. That is the present intention of the League in dealing with this subject.

Mr. RILEY: Has any attempt been made to raise the residuary sum by organisations appealing for the money?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I understand that that is so. I was saying that His Majesty's Government cannot accept responsibility, but we do not and should not attempt to disguise our special interest in a satisfactory solution of this problem. It is natural that we should wish to do our best for a community with whom we have been connected, even if it

is only by chance, for a number of years, and in addition there are certain valuable military services which have been performed by the Assyrians in Iraq, and they are still performing these duties. These services, therefore, make it incumbent upon us to do all we can to assist in assuring their future safety.
The League has addressed itself for funds not only to various Governments but to private individuals and organisations and the religious and humanitarian aspects which appeal to these particular organisations will I trust ensure a substantial response from these private sources. But it is also from the political point of view, or what the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) called at Geneva the point of view of enlightened self-interest, that I now ask the Committee to consider the matter. We have always had, and we still have, a special interest in the peace and tranquillity of the Middle East. Troubles and disturbances in that part of the world are bound to have serious reactions not only in the world as a whole but in territories in which we are greatly concerned. A solution of this problem which has always been thorny and which may at any time become very dangerous, deserves the most earnest attention and serious effort. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will be willing to vote the contribution which it is my duty to propose. This difficult question has been before the League too long and if it is not settled now it may be the cause of anxiety and difficulty in international affairs for many years to come. If this scheme fails it may be difficult to get another scheme started. We believe in the League and in an international settlement of international problems. We believe in playing our part as a country in that international settlement. It is in the confident belief that the contribution which is now being proposed is in the truest traditions of this country that I ask the Committee to give it its support.

Mr. LOFTUS: The Under-Secretary has not mentioned the numbers of the community which it is proposed to settle in this area.

Viscount CRANBORNE: The total number is estimated to be about 30,000 although it is not actually certain what is the number which will take advantage of the scheme.

5. 24 p.m.

Mr. DALTON: I do not rise to oppose this proposal but to make certain comments on the affair. It is not quite worthy of the British Government to protest too much that they have no responsibility in this matter. I have a feeling that the Foreign Office has not stood up to the Treasury in the past and is not standing up to the Treasury now. This contribution is much too small, has been too long delayed and is being too slowly doled out. On the last point I would ask the Under-Secretary to give us a little more information as to how far the public works necessary for the drainage of the Orontes River have been carried and I express the hope that this work is being pushed forward with vigour. The view that His Majesty's Government have no special obligation towards these unfortunate people has frequently been proclaimed by Government spokesmen, but it is not shared by students of the matter in the Labour party nor by students of such diverse types as the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Lloyd. There is an imposing and heterogeneous body of opinion on this subject which does not accept the rather easy evasion of responsibility which the Noble Lord has again declared to-day. I want to quote to the Committee a statement by Sir Francis Humphrys in 1932 before the Mandates Commission when the question of the liquidation of the Iraq Mandate was under consideration. Some members of the Mandates Commission expressed concern on behalf of the minorities which would be left in Iraq, and Sir Francis Humphrys said:
His Majesty's Government fully realises its responsibility in recommending that Iraq should be admitted to the League. Should Iraq prove herself unworthy of the confidence which has been placed in her the moral responsibility must rest with His Majesty's Government.
In the view of all decent people—I make an exception for the Treasury point of view of these matters—with moral responsibility financial responsibility goes also. In our youth we learned a poem beginning:
The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold
But it was the Iraqi who came down like a wolf on the fold in 1932 and massacred, raped, looted and destroyed those hapless Assyrian settlements.

Any hon. Member who wishes to read in detail that shocking story should consult a book entitled "The Tragedy of the Assyrians" by Lieut.-Colonel Stafford, a British regular officer who won the Distinguished Service Order and the Military Cross in the War and who acted as administrative inspector in Iraq for a number of years, including the years of these disgusting atrocities. If only a small part of what he says is true, it is evident that a moral responsibility falls upon the British Government, as Sir Francis Humphrys clearly foretold, in not having made adequate provision to safeguard these unfortunate people. This is bloodstained history, and for nearly three years after this massacre His Majesty's Government go to Geneva, armed with a pedantic Treasury brief, and endeavour to shift the responsibility for not succouring these people all round the globe and to reduce their own contribution to the minimum. It is unworthy and it is discreditable; and my complaint is that much more money was not given, much more promptly and with a better spirit long ago. Now at last a. place has been found in the Orontes Valley where it is hoped that the remnants of this unhappy and ancient Christian race will find at last a secure and prosperous home. My question to the Noble Lord is, are the Government going on with the necessary work to settle these people there? Are the engineering works being pushed forward, and how soon does the Under-Secretary expect to come to the House and ask for a further instalment of this sum of money up to £250,000 which His Majesty's Government have at last screwed themselves up to provide for this humane work.
Finally, £180,000 is to be raised by private charity or on credit. I do not find that statement very uplifting. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who has long pleaded the cause of these unhappy folk, has been told to go round with the hat amongst his friends and collect what he can and, if he cannot collect it all, then some moneylender will lend the balance at interest. Would it not be far better for His Majesty's Government to come forward and say that they will straightforwardly meet this bill for which in my submission they have a moral responsibility. My final question, therefore, is whether this £250,000 is a fixed limit


to our expenditure for doing our duty, or can the Under-Secretary give some undertaking that, if the efforts of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his friends should fail to realise the full £180,000, he will go back to the Treasury and say that, having regard to the state of feeling in this country amongst all decent-minded people who are acquainted with this question, he must ask them to look at this matter again, not from a narrow-minded standard of economy to be pursued along the line of least resistance at the expense of a helpless and defenceless people, who have no representatives in this House, but to meet our moral obligations by a further grant from British revenue.

5.30 p.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I have listened with interest to the Debate on this subject, but in listening to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I did not think he was doing full justice to the British Government in this affair. I think that in this particular case we ought; to realise that, while we have tried to help the Assyrians, the work of the League of Nations has in many ways been a hindrance. I think we ought to realise that the situation would have been very different if the suggestion of the British Government had been taken by the Boundary Commission. If the Assyrians had remained under the rule of the British Government, I think that, as in the past, this country would have shouldered both the moral and the financial burden. The difficulty arose when Iraq was admitted a State member of the League of Nations. I sometimes wonder, if the British Government had declared that Iraq ought not to obtain that status, how many people in this country and in this House would have expressed the opinion that the Government were not working in full support of the League. I believe that the Assyrian problem is one in which the work of the League has hindered rather than helped. I would remind hon. Members that in addition to the contribution of £250,000—and I would like to bear from my hon. Friend who is going to reply whether this is correct—we shall also be taking our share in the contribution that is to be made by the League.
Since the League took the responsibility for this matter the work has been slow, and the blame for this must to a great

extent be placed on the League. I am one of those who support the League of Nations and its work, but I think that when difficulties arise in connection with the work of the League, it is of no use simply blaming the British Government and saying that the League's work is always perfect. It has been suggested that the British Government could have done more than it has done, that it could have collected larger sums of money, that it could have worked independently and have realised the moral responsibility; but I would ask hon. Members whether, if the British Government had done that, it would not have been said that they were working outside the League and that the matter was one which concerned the League. Would it not have been said that it was impossible outside the League of Nations to negotiate with other countries concerning the places to which the Assyrians should be sent and concerning the collection of funds to carry out the plan?
We all regret the terrible tragedy that has occurred, but I do not think that it can be shown that the British Government has not played its part in an extraordinarily difficult situation. I feet that one of the big mistakes was that the boundary was fixed as it was, and I think it is a mistake for which the League bears the responsibility. I do not consider that the British Government can be blamed for those mistakes, which arose rather because the League was in its infancy so far as arrangements of this sort are concerned. The attempt has been made, and if the work has so far been carried out not as we would have wished it to be, I can only hope that experience has been gained by the League which will enable work of this nature, which probably should be carried out by such a body, to be done better in the future.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: Before dealing with the question of the Assyrians, I would like to ask the Noble Lord whether in replying he would be good enough to give some explanation of the first Vote, which is a grant of £3,000 for a gift to the League of Nations. I would like him to explain precisely what is the gift, because in the past many gifts have been given—some of them of a rather embarrassing nature—which were not par-


titularly appropriate, and it is, of course, extremely important that the gifts sent by every country should be capable of being usefully employed. I feel sure that the Government have made their choice wisely, but I would like to have some more information concerning the gift.
The hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) criticised the action of the League in this matter. In doing so she was criticising the States members of the League, and everybody knows that there is a great deal that can be said in criticism of various States members. I am very glad that the Government have now abandoned the position which they at one time took up with regard to the Assyrians, when they said that they had no special liability and were not willing to make any substantial contribution apart from the same contribution which other Governments might make. The Noble Lord tried to emphasise that we have no special liability. By that I suppose he meant that we have no legal liability, for it is obvious that we have a great moral liability. The fact that the Government have handsomely contributed £250,000, and have possibly given something towards the £250,000 which Iraq has to contribute, is a very plain admission of our great moral responsibility.
That responsibility comes under two heads. The Noble Lord said that during the War the Assyrians fought on our side, although in association with the Russians. When the Russians departed from the scene, the Assyrians were urged by our authorities, as I understand it, to continue as our allies, and they were given assurances—not official, but sufficient assurances—that we would in some way look after them. Secondly, there is the special responsibility that arises from the mandate. My hon. Friend who spoke just now referred to what was said in the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. He said that there was no doubt whatever that it was solely because of the assurances we gave that Iraq could be trusted—which turned out to be quite unfounded—that the Assyrians were handed over to Iraq. I understand that one of the members of the Mandates Commission has since said that it was only because of his belief that the British Government were going to accept responsibility for the

Assyrians that he corsented to allow the entry of Iraq to the League of Nations.
Therefore, I do not think it can be contended—and I do not think the Government do contend—that we have not a great responsibility. Indeed, the Government have acknowledged that responsibility handsomely by the contribution which they have made. But I do wish they could have gone further, and I still hope that it may be possible for them to reconsider the matter. An appeal was made by Lord Cecil is another place the other day when this question was being discussed. I should be glad to know whether that appeal has been considered and whether it is proposed to make any response to it. It has been mentioned that £180,000 has to he raised by charity, but I think that £50,000 is the amount for which an appeal is to be made, and that the remainder is to be obtained by loans. If the Government were able on reconsideration to say that. they would close the whole matter by making an additional grant of —50,000, I cannot help thinking that their action would meet with a great deal of approval from all quarters interested in the question in this country.
The Noble Lord explained in a very interesting way the various efforts that have been made by the League from time to time to settle the Assyrians. The place which has now been selected seems to be far more appropriate than any that was previously considered. It will certainly be cheaper to transfer the Assyrians such a short distance rather than overseas. From the physical and climatic point of view the place would seem to be thoroughly suitable, as it is not far from the place to which the Assyrians have been accustomed, and at the same time it is sufficiently distant from the frontiers of Turkey and Iraq to prevent any troubles arising from incursions on the one side or the other.
I would, however, ask the Noble Lord whether he could give some information on one point. The transfer of the Assyrians will take four years, but what is going to happen to the people who, during that time, are left behind? What steps are to be taken during that prolonged period to see that they are properly protected and looked after? It is obvious that as long as they remain there they will be in danger of the same things which have happened in the past.


I think we have a right to ask for some assurance that this matter has not been overlooked. Moreover, there will apparently be a residue of Assyrians content to live in their present place permanently. I do not know whether the Noble Lord could explain why they arc content to remain and why they have different views from their relatives who are going away. But if they choose to stay, when they have a chance of going, I suppose that is really their affair.
I would like to congratulate the Government on the way in which they have now dealt with this matter. They have not done all they might have done, but they have undoubtedly done very well. I hope the scheme will be successful and that at long last the debt of honour which we owe to that long-suffering and industrious people will filially be paid.

5.43 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I would like to ask the Noble Lord two questions on this Vote. In the first place, what are the other members of the League doing as regards individual contributions? The hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) rather implied that the League was fulfilling its obligations by the contribution it was giving. Actually the League contribution is one-fiftieth of the total cost. I would like to ask the Noble Lord what the Government is doing as regards pressing other members to give individual contributions. It is understandable that the League as an entity may not, with the limited amount of money it has in its coffers, be able to give more than one-fiftieth, but surely the other members of the League could make individual contributions in the same way as France and this country. I base my question on the premise of the Noble Lord himself. I made a note of several of the sentences which he used. He said that the scheme is an international settlement and that it is under the auspices of the League. He said that it concerns other countries, that it has a religious and a humanitarian aspect, that it is an international problem in character, that we are only connected with it by chance, and have no special responsibility.
In view of all that, do not think that any of us would like to see private

charity brought into the matter. Surely religious and humanitarian aspects are common grounds for all the other members of the League, as well as this country and France. Consequently, I would ask the Noble Lord whether the Government have made representations to other members of the League that they should in their individual capacities dip their hands into their pockets and come to the rescue so as to prevent private charity being brought in. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that this country has acted handsomely. If we accept those sentences of the Noble Lord to which I refer, I think there is not a Government supporter in the House who does not think that this country has acted generously and fulfilled all its obligations, particularly as it really has no obligations at all, as was said by the Noble Lord. It is because the principle of collective security which we have been discussing in other Debates raises also the principle of collective responsibility, that I would ask the Noble Lord to say whether the Government, if they have not already done so, will ask other individual members of the League to put their hands into their pockets and respond to the humanitarian and religious appeal involved in this matter, in the same way as this country has done.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I cannot speak on this subject with the knowledge displayed by other hon. Members. Until to-day I was unacquainted with the facts of this case and I must thank the Noble Lord for the very full and lucid explanation which he has given of it. I think it has been a lesson to us all to hear of what has happened to these people as a result of the War. I am very glad that the League of Nations has taken up their case, because I think it is the duty of the League to look after cases of this kind and to show an example to the world. I did not gather the number of people who were involved or the number who are expected to go back. Perhaps the Noble Lord will give the Committee some information on that point when he replies. May I also ask who will have control of these people when they have settled down? Will they be under the League or under the French; and how long will it be before the League finally says it is finished with them and that


some nation will have to take charge of them?
I would also like some further explanation of the sum in the Estimate. I gather than the League of Nations is contributing 1,300,000 gold francs. I do not know exactly what that amounts to in sterling. The Iraqi Government are contributing five-twelfths of die total cost subject to a maximum of £250,000 and His Majesty's Government are contributing five-twelfths subject to a similar maximum. Obviously, somebody will have to make up the remaining one-sixth, but there is no mention in the Estimate of who is to contribute that balance. If that sum does not come from the anticipated direction, who will ultimately have to find it? On the general aspect of the scheme, I was very pleased to hear what he said, especially as I have always taken a great interest in the East and particularly in the countries affected by this proposal.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. RILEY: I wish to reinforce the plea which has been made by the two hon. Members below the Gangway with regard to the raising of the sum of £189,000 which is not guaranteed by the League, as set forth in the Estimate. It appears to be expected that this money will be raised by private charity. My information on the subject differs somewhat from that of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). As I understand it, the whole of that sum is expected to be raised by an appeal to private charity. Congratulations have been offered from these benches as well as from the other side to the Government on the spirit which has been displayed in dealing with this distressing situation arising out of the War. On the whole, the Government have "come down" fairly handsomely, in rescuing these 30,000 people from the disaster which seemed to be impending in their case. I only wish to say that the example given in this case might be followed, both by this country and the League of Nations, in regard to many thousands of Europeans who, to-day, are, more or less, in the same condition as the Assyrians, or at any rate in a hardly less serious condition, relatively speaking, in various parts of Europe. If the same responsi-

bility were exercised in regard to these Europeans, it would redound to the credit of our own Government and other Governments which are supposed to adopt a humane attitude on these questions. However that may be, I feel that the Government are none the less entitled to congratulations. I wish to ask whether the sum of £180,000, if not raised by private charity, will be raised by the Governments concerned. It would seem to be a cheese-paring policy to allow a great piece of humanitarian work to suffer because of dependence on charity in the last resort for a sum of £100,000 or £180,000. If private charity does not rise to the occasion, the Governments concerned ought themselves to complete the job.

5.53 p.m.

Viscount CRANBORNE: The main point raised in this Debate was that made by the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland thought I had protested too much about the Government having no responsibility in this matter and that all the Government speakers had protested too much. I do not think the hon. Member was quite fair in that respect. I merely stated that I did not believe that we had a special responsibility.

Mr. DALTON: In spite of what Sir Francis Humphrys said?

Viscount CRANBORNE: In spite of what Sir Francis Humphrys said. I simply mentioned the fact that we did not bring the Assyrians into the war and that if the Council of the League had accepted our advice i his difficulty would not have arisen. To my mind those facts indicate that the chief burden of responsibility does rest on the League. This is an international problem. I know that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to a select band of those whom he called decent people, apparently consisting of himself, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Cecil.

Mr. DALTON: And Lord Lloyd.

Viscount CRANBORNE: But there are, I submit to him, other decent people who do not take the same view. It seems to me that we are in the position of a man who has rescued somebody from drowning. One obviously has a special inter-


est in the man, but one is not thereby made responsible for keeping him for the rest of his life. That is the position of the Government with regard to the Assyrians. I confess I was surprised at the charge that the British Government have acted meanly in this matter. I have already said that the British Government after the War spent a considerable sum on the Assyrians and I can now tell the Committee that the sum which they spent was upwards of £4,000,000. That was spent on the upkeep of these Assyrians after the War. Having spent that large sum, we are now offering to spend an additional —250,000 and I do not think it can be contended in those circumstances that we are acting in a mean or unworthy manner. After all, this is not the only place where there are poor and unhappy people. We have many other calls upon our public purse. I think while we are ready to give this assistance in arriving at a final settlement of this matter, it cannot be said that we have any special responsibility.
Several other points have been raised. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton and I think the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) raised points with regard to this sum of £180,000. I was asked whether the whole of this sum was to be met by private charity and I think the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton suggested that only £50,000 was to be met in that way. The residuary amount to which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred is £180,000 as can be ascertained by a very simple sum in arithmetic. The idea was that private charity and private interests of various kinds would subscribe all they could and the present estimate is that they will manage to find about £50,000, leaving £130,000 still to be found. The hope has been expressed that a loan might be raised to cover that amount on the basis of repayment later on, when the new area of settlement was in a flourishing condition. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) asked what would happen if private charity did not raise the sum. I hope we need not anticipate that eventuality. After the interest which has been shown in the matter this afternoon I hope that money will be forthcoming. If it is not forthcoming the question will no doubt be further considered by the League. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also asked whether the scheme had started.

Mr. DALTON: I was anxious to know how far these engineering works which have been enumerated as being necessary have progressed. A list of engineering works has been mentioned on another occasion and I wish to know whether these works have been started and how they are getting on.

Viscount CRANBORNE: The works include the construction of a dam and a reservoir and a tunnel. Various operations of a preliminary character have been started or are to be started as soon as possible.

Mr. DALTON: Do I understand that there has not yet been any beginning in the actual works such as the driving of the tunnel?

Viscount CRANBORNE: My information is that what is called preliminary work has begun, but I could not give any further information.

Mr. DALTON: Has the work begun on the spot?

Viscount CRANBORNE: Yes. I understand the intention is that all the Assyrians should go from Iraq, that is all who are willing to go, as soon as possible. Pending their permanent settlement in the Ghab plain, a small area will be provided where they will reside temporarily. They will all move from Iraq as soon as possible.

Mr. MANDER: Can the Noble Lord say when it is anticipated that this will take place?

Viscount CRANBORNE: As soon as the area can be got ready for them. Certain of these people do not, I am told, want to go. As to what is to happen to them I am afraid they will have to stay where they are. The question was also asked what contribution had there been by other members of the League. Except for the collective contribution of the League to which I have referred there were no other contributions. As I have said, although we do not accept a special responsibility in this case, we recognise that we have a certain interest in the matter and, obviously, the same remark applies to the Iraqi Government and the French Mandated Territories.

Mr. TINKER: I cannot get at that £180,000 yet.

Viscount CRANBORNE: A sum of £380,000 is being given by the French mandated territories; £250,000 by the Iraqi Government, £250,000 by the British Government, and £86,000 by the League as a whole. If the total of those items is taken from £1,146,000 it leaves —180,000.

Mr. TINKER: I hope that the League account can be put into English figures because it is difficult to understand when put in golden francs.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I have now given the figures in sterling. I think that I have now answered the main questions which were put to me.

Sir P. HANNON: I do not think my Noble Friend has answered a question put by an hon. Member opposite under what administration this settlement will be carried on, and how long the League of Nations will be responsible for administration for the first and second group. When will the French administration come in, and are any arrangements being made for the economic development of the settlement in order to develop the community from the agricultural and horticultural point of view?

Viscount CRANBORNE: A Trustee board has been set up by the League and it will take charge of the administration of the settlement. The community will be under its administration until such time as the settlement has been completed when it is hoped that the Assyrians will be assimilated as subjects of the mandated territories. A separate minority inside a territory is not a permanent solution and if they become assimilated it will be the best solution for all concerned.

Mr. MANDER: The Noble Lord has not dealt with the gift to the League of Nations Palace.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I did not think it was a matter in which the Committee would be very anxious because a rebate is rather satisfactory in any Estimate. This £3,000 relates to a gift which is to be made by the British Government to the new League of Nations building. It is a great piece of sculpture which is to be made by Mr. Eric Gill, one of the most

eminent of British sculptors. It was provided in the League of Nations Vote for 1935–36 and it was expected that the money would be spent this year, but owing to the difficulties of placing it and obtaining the approval of the Secretary-General of the League, there has been delay in completing the sculpture. Its cost will, therefore, come in the Estimates next year, and there is a saving this year.

CLASS I.

SCOTTISH OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,630, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Scotland in London and Edinburgh; expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899; a Subsidy for Transport Services to the Western Highlands and Islands; a Grant in lieu of Land Tax; and contributions towards the expenses of Probation, and of Remand Homes.

6.5 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): This Supplementary Estimate is mainly required to meet the cost of additional staff which had to be appointed to meet the increased pressure of work. This was clue to the fact that a branch of the Scottish Office was established in Edinburgh in January, 1935. The office has been found to be of great value to local authorities in Scotland, who now have a place where they can readily make contact with the administration of the Scottish Office. When my right hon. Friend opened the Scottish Office it was pointed out that it would give facilities for personal discussions between the Scottish Office and local authorities, and local authorities were invited to take full advantage of it. The response to the invitation has been greater than we anticipated and we have had to provide additional staff. During the first three weeks of February of this year, the staff held no fewer than 50 meetings with members and officials of local authorities and other bodies who had come to discuss questions in connection with local government services. That is in addition to the formal deputations which the Secretary of State and myself have received.


That is the main cause of this Supplementary Estimate.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I want to thank the Under-Secretary for his explanation of this Vote. It is good to know that a large number of the staff of the Scottish Office have been transferred to Edinburgh to carry on the work of meeting the representatives of local authorities. It has resulted in considerable time and money being saved by local authorities whose representatives formerly had to go to London. One likes to beleive that this expenditure is only the beginning of what may ultimately be a large removal of the Scottish staff from England and London and the concentrations of its operations in Scotland. There is one point I would like the Under-Secretary to explain, for he has made no reference to it. In the heading of this Estimate, there is a statement that this amount is to cover a subsidy for transport services to the Western Highland and Islands.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think that the hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know that the heading of a Supplementary Estimate has no relation to its contents. We are strictly limited to the actual items set out in the Paper.

Mr. MACLEAN: As I understand, there are certain items which have to be borne on this Vote. There is an extra sum required somewhere, and as a Scotsman I want to know where it appears. I am not disputing your Ruling, Captain Bourne, but I want to know how much additional is going to the transport services to the Western Isles because it is a service which has been of great benefit, not only to the Western Isles, but to the people who trade with them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have now looked at the main Estimates and the particular item to which the hon. Member refers is under Sub-head E. That is not in this Supplementary Estimate, and therefore I am afraid it cannot arise.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is mentioned in the heading to the Estimate, but not in the details of the Estimate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has appreciated that in a Supplementary Estimate it is the custom to set out the title of

the main Estimate, but the only items with which this Committee can deal are those actually included in the Supplementary Estimate. The question that he is trying to raise is Sub-head E, Class 1, Vote 24, Scottish Office. In this particular Supplementary Estimate there is no provision either for extra expenditure or for savings under that Sub-head. Therefore, on this occasion it does not arise.

Mr. MACLEAN: I will leave that point, therefore, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will manage to get it in somehow if there is an explanation that ought to be given to the Committee. We are spending more money on this service, and we would like to know how it is being spent. The only other matter is the anticipated savings under Sub-head I. The Under-Secretary might give us some information where he intends to effect that saving, and if it will mean the depletion of the service or the lessening of its efficiency.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. WESTWOOD: We are not going to oppose this Vote. As one who is in the fortunate position of being connected with at least four of the administrative authorities in Scotland, I think that I can officially in their name congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for having set up the department which is under review at the moment. It has been a great service to the local authorities in Scotland. With my close connection with that work, particularly during the last four years, I can say without hesitation that the traditions of the Scottish Civil Service have been well maintained in the staffing of that department. It has made all the difference to much of our work. It has been far easier to get in touch with those who are, in turn, in contact with the political heads, and it has enabled us in many instances to get on much more quickly with our work. I want officially on behalf of the local authorities in Scotland, the Convention of Royal Burghs and the large burghs and cities to say that we are well pleased with the work that is being done and to thank the heads of the departments for the civility and courtesy which is always extended when we approach them in connection with our work.
I have no complaint to make of the increase in the contributions towards the


expenses of remand homes, for which £245 is asked in this Estimate, except that sufficient has not been asked for. One of the difficulties in administration in Scotland is the fact that we have no proper homes to which magistrates can remand young persons, not for the purposes of punishment, or for branding them as criminals, but for the purpose of giving them an opportunity to be reclaimed. As a magistrate I recently found myself in a most difficult position. A young person was before me charged with theft. The conditions in his home were not good. If I had sent him to gaol it would only have meant that he would go back eventually to the same home surroundings, and probably there would have been a repetition of his offence, and in order that I might feel that I had done my duty by that young person I had to delay my decision while I made inquiries of the Scottish Office and elsewhere to ascertain whether there was an appropriate home to which I could send him, not for punishment, because I believe he was more sinned against than sinning, but with the object of reclaiming him.
I should not have objected to a far larger Supplementary Estimate if it had been for the purpose of giving us in Scotland some central institution to which we could send young persons with the knowledge that they would be properly looked after and put on the right lines once more. Although the whole question cannot now be debated, I hope that when the Estimates are submitted it will be found that steps have been taken to give us such a central home. Let me again say that we on this side shall not oppose this Vote. I will not say that we are quite pleased with it. It may be that it is only a step towards complete Scottish Government by the Scottish people, but the work of administration in Scotland has been made easier by the setting up of this Department.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not know whether to be gratified or not by the increase in the expenditure on remand homes, because I do not know all the facts which lie behind it. If this extra expenditure is necessitated by an increase in youthful crime in Scotland we cannot feel gratified; but, on the other hand, it

may be gratifying. I should like to be told the reasons for the increase. Has there been an increase in crime among the youthful population, or are we spending more on trying to bring back these alleged youthful criminals into the proper channels. I feel that in certain cases this extra money on remand homes might be saved, and I would like the attention of the Lord Advocate to this point. It is the practice in the City of Glasgow when a young person who is below a certain age is arrested—most of them are boys—to send him to a remand home before he is tried. Bail can be easily secured by an adult but not for this class of alleged youthful criminals, if you can call a boy of this age a criminal. I think the term "alleged wrongdoer" would sound better. It might be there would be no necessity for this increased expenditure on remand homes if some reasonable system of bailing out these young offenders were adopted.
I approached the Procurator-Fiscal in Glasgow the other week with reference to a number of boys who had come, not from very bad homes, but from ordinary working class homes. I said to him, "I will go bail for the lads." He told me, "Under the Youthful Offenders Act you cannot do this with a youthful criminal. He has to go to a remand home and wait there till he is tried." I asked him, "What would happen if something serious occurred at a boy's home and it became desirable that he should be let out?" The Procurator-Fiscal told me, "In such circumstances we should have to take a risk, but we have no legal power to let him out." I cannot raise now the whole question of how to deal with the problem of the youthful offender, because I should be immediately ruled out of order, but I hope that some day it will be discussed, because there is no more serious problem confronting us at the moment than presented by the young people in our big cities who have failed to keep outside the law; but I feel that we ought to consider giving the Procurator-Fiscal or others in authority power to release these youthful offenders on bail.
Another point I wish to raise in connection with remand homes is this: I know they were introduced with a good object, that of removing youths from the influence of adult criminals, and to that extent it was a laudable object; but I


think part of the money now being spent might be saved if the authorities did not in all cases insist on these young offenders going to remand homes but allowed them to go home, even without formal arrest, for a day or two. Further, I think the Secretary of State for Scotland might devote a little attention to improving these remand homes in our big cities. If any of this money is being spent on such improvement I welcome the fact, because the Committee can take it from me that the homes stand in need of considerable improvement. Consider the one in the City of Glasgow. I say no word against the officials in charge of it. If we are to have remand homes where children are kept three or four days—and in certain cases that may be unavoidable—they ought to be better situated than they are and provide better accommodation and more air space. The officials in Glasgow do the best they can, but I do not think the location of the home is suitable. In the old days one had to have the remand home near to the county building where the sheriff was going to try these young offenders, but in these clays of rapid motor transport there is no longer any need for the remand home to be in the centre of the city. Remand homes should be taken away from crowded centres of population and better accommodation should be provided.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: I should like to tell the Committee something of my experiences under the old system of the School Board in dealing with what is called the youthful defaulter. It was not so much the child who was at fault. The fault was in the system which gave the people homes in which it was sometimes next to impossible properly to rear children. We who were on that Board, 25 in number, realised that if we were to restrain the growth of the seeds of ill-doing already planted in the child we must change the child's surroundings. We therefore took a small estate called—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No doubt this is very interesting, but I do not see its connection with the matter now before the Committee.

Mr. HARDIE: I am dealing with the system of remand homes.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That subject should be raised on the main Estimates, so far as it refers to the general system. We are dealing now with the increase in the Vote.

Mr. HARDIE: I was going to point out the reason for the increase in the Vote. I am trying to help those who will reply by a contribution from my own practical experience, but if information of that kind is not wanted there is no reason why I should give it. In dealing with any form of remand home you have to ask what is the function of a remand home. I can deal with the function of a remand home under this Supplementary-Estimate, I hope. A remand home is as place of detention until a certain time has elapsed, during which whatever has been done by a juvenile culprit is put into a form upon which a judge can judge the case and give a decision. Instead of the conditions which now prevail, it would be better to have the system which I have described. I can see no possibility of good results from children being confined in a congested area, where they make contacts which you have tried to prevent by taking them away from home. If we want to bring a corrective influence to bear upon children, after we have taken them away from the bad influences and put them into a remand home, we should cut away the contacts; but you are not cutting away the contacts if you, are placing these children all together.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have listened to the hon. Member, but he must raise this question on the main Estimates.

Mr. HARDIE: We are discussing the question of money, and I am discussing a system which means the expenditure of more money.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is raising the whole question, but that is only in order on the main Estimates.

Mr. HARDIE: I will, therefore, stick to this sum of money. This sum is absolutely insufficient to deal with any reform in the existing remand homes. I am surprised that hon. Members who are so familiar with slipping through millions of money should give so little consideration to this matter. If anything should touch the hearts of men and women it is that children are being deflected from


the path which they ought to tread, and we come along with handfuls of halfpennies to deal with a huge question. Let us not forget that unless we take better care in regard to the things that are done in the remand homes we are not only laying a foundation but we are putting on that foundation a sub-soil and 'an upper soil for the development of criminals. I plead with the Committee to keep those considerations in view.

6.34 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): We have heard only two topics discussed in the Debate which has taken place. The first is in regard -to the Establishment of the Edinburgh Office, in respect of which there has been nothing in the way of criticism or disapproval. I welcomed the appreciative reference, made by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), to the work which the staff at the new Department are doing, and I am sure will continue to do, in facilitating contact between the Central Office and the local authorities of Scotland. As regards the remand homes, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) seemed to think that the additional expenditure under this head was rendered necessary either by the failure or the refusal of the authorities, particularly in Glasgow, to allow bail to juvenile offenders. I am happy to be able to assure him that the expenditure covered by this Estimate is not associated with either of those causes since it is attributable solely to the improvement of the accommodation afforded in the remand homes. It is not in any way associated with an increase in juvenile crime or with the specific point to which he referred.
That being so, I doubt whether I should be in order in pursuing the discussion upon the specific difficulty raised by the hon. Member, in regard to the granting of bail in such cases, and as to whether that difficulty requires administrative action either by myself or by someone else, or legislative action. I have noted with care the point that he raised, and I shall be prepared to go fully into it if he so desires. Those are the only outstanding points which require attention, and I trust that the Committee will now see their way to grant the Estimate.

CLASS III.

PRISONS DEPARTMENT FOR SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,490, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Prisons Department for Scotland and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics, Defectives, and Inmates of the State Inebriate Reformatory, and the Preparation of Judicial Statistics."—[Sir G. Collins.]

6.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: This Supplementary Estimate is required for three items, the restoration of economy cuts in pay, the provision of materials and tools required for the use of prisoners, and the charge for making up a private road adjacent to Aberdeen Prison. These items amount to an additional charge of £4,160. Against that, there is an Appropriation-in-Aid of £670, being, in the main, receipts derived from the sale of mail bags to the Post Office. That leaves a total of £3,490.

Mr. MACLEAN: What it the item F, in regard to the instruction of prisoners?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is material required for the work done in the instruction of prisoners. No extra amount is required for special services.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What prisons are actually affected?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think it is throughout the poisons where the manufacture of mail bags is carried out, and is in respect of tie canvas for mail bags for the Post Office.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: I want to protest against what is happening in prisons.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. BENSON: On a point of Order. I want to protest that there are certain individuals in Barlinnie Prison who ought not to be there. Had they not been there, the amount of money involved in the purchase of extra materials to be worked upon would be considerably less.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is being very ingenious, but I cannot admit his argument.

Mr. BENSON: Surely it is permissible to raise reasons why the money has to be spent?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That might be true, but the hon. Gentleman cannot use that principle upon which to hang an argument that would only be admissible on the main Estimate.

Mr. BENSON: I should like to know how it is that £3,310 has been spent on materials for making mail bags and that the Appropriation-in-Aid only amounts to —670? I feel very strongly about mail bags, having made many of them. I feel that if prisoners working on £3,300 worth of material reduce the value of the material to £670, Scottish prisoners are considerably less skilled than the prisoners were in my prison.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: I take exception to the sum required. The manufacture of mail bags ought not to take place inside His Majesty's prisons whether ordinary prisons or criminal lunatic asylums. We are justified in taking exception to the amount that has been put down to purchase material with which to provide instruction to prisoners in the manufacture of mail bags. I would be out of order of I were to suggest any form of employment which, in our opinion, would be an improvement upon that work, which the prisoners will never be required to do outside. Those who control the prisons of Scotland should improve their instructional methods, and should provide prisoners with work to which they could turn their hands when they come out of the institution. The sum which we are voting will be lost, because it is going into a cul-de-sac, a dead-end of occupation for those who are going to use the material.
This Vote deals with all classes of prisoners, including those in criminal lunatic asylums as well as with Stoneyetts, to which prison mental defectives are sent. I have had my attention drawn recently to a number of cases, which I have sent to the Secretary of State for Scotland. In one I was informed that the individual concerned was being instructed in a special class, but my latest information is that the special

training consists in digging drains. That represents practically no instruction of an educational character. The individual is being used almost as a manual labourer, with several others. Such cases seem to be growing in number. In Glasgow, particularly, young lads, guilty merely of a little horse-play or a boyish escapade, are taken before a court and sentenced to one or two months' imprisonment. They are examined under the authority of the Scottish Office and the Prisons Department, certified mentally defective, and sent to Stoneyetts.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will be in order in referring to matters connected with the instruction of prisoners, but he is now dealing with general questions of administration.

Mr. MACLEAN: I was stating, for the information of the Committee, certain things that are happening in Glasgow, in order that I might lead up to the question of the numbers of these youths under 20 who, under the system that seems to have grown up in our local police and sheriff courts, are now being certified and sent to this asylum for mental defectives, where they are supposed to be receiving instruction which in fact they are not getting. If there were only one individual case it would be bad enough, but when there is a number of cases in which the same treatment is being received we have a right to protest. I suggest to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary that there ought to be an inquiry into the system which now prevails. I have seen some of these young lads, and in my opinion they are not mentally defective at all, but they are, practically speaking, being put to manual labour on the ground. I suggest that the Minister, the Under-Secretary and the Scottish Office ought to review the whole of the circumstances. I have asked for a permit to visit this institution, but I have not yet received it. I am told that, if I will state on what day it will be convenient for me to go, they will let me know if I can go there. That is not sufficient for a Member of the House who is interested in the welfare of a number of his constituents. I want to be able to pay such a. visit when I return to Glasgow, but I cannot always acquaint either the authorities in Glasgow or the Scottish


Office of the particular days upon which I shall be able—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why should they not give us a free pass to all the prisons?

Mr. MACLEAN: We might go there sooner than we expected, and some of those of us who have been protesting about the manufacture of mail bags might be engaged in it themselves. Surely we are entitled to inquire about people in whom we are interested and whose parents have protested to us about the treatment and instruction that they are receiving. We ought to be able to go and see for ourselves, giving due notice, of course, but not having to wait for a permit from the Scottish Office. There should not be the present delay and the red tape which seems to be even more plentiful than the material which is purchased for the manufacture of mail bags. The way in which young persons in Glasgow are being certified and sent to become mere manual labourers, without receiving any instruction that will benefit them in civil life, is becoming a great scandal.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: The Secretary of State may recollect that, the last time these Estimates were discussed, certain observations were made with regard to the question of buildings and offices. I would like to put a question with regard to Sub-head O—Ordinary Repairs of Buildings. As far as I can ascertain, the Department has attended to one point that was raised, namely, the provision of water tanks for prisoners and others working in the quarries, which was very much overdue. I want to refer to Barlinnie Prison—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Barlinnie Prison comes under Sub-head N, which is not now before the Committee.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) about Stoneyetts. I wish that the Secretary of State for Scotland would pay a visit to that institution. I go to Peterhead sometimes, but when I go there I might as well be the Man in the Moon. As a Member of the House of Commons I am asked to vote money for Peterhead Prison, but I am

never allowed a single facility, although I should like to know what I have voted that money for. I wish that the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate would provide Members of Parliament who take an interest in prison work with reasonable facilities for access to these prisons.
I desire to ask a question on Subhead C—Pay and Allowances of Officers—with regard to the restoration of the cut in wages. The original Estimate was for £83,718, and the revised Estimate is only £320 more. Obviously if the cuts had been restored to every one it would cost far more than £320. Why is it that this sum is so small as compared with what the restoration of the cuts would cost? I cannot see how, in the case of a prison, the Estimates could be very far wrong. It is not a Department of State that is constantly chopping up and down, and I would ask whether the smallness of this increase is due to any other form of economy, such as reduction of staff in any other direction?

6.53 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: With regard to the question of instruction of prisoners, which is included in Sub-head F, should I be in order in asking what the instruction in farming is, and whether any instruction is given to those who are put on the land? One cart understand pretty well the question as regards mail bags, but since under this Sub-head we vote money for the purchase of implements to deal with land, I should be glad if we could be told, as regards the instruction in farming, whether there is anyone who is qualified by skill in farming to give instruction to those who are detained there.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The note on my copy of the Estimate states that this money is required for the purchase of canvas. The question with which the hon. Member is dealing does not now arise.

Mr. HARDIE: Sub-head F is for:
Materials and Tools for Manufactures and Farms.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is only the general heading. In the note there is a very definite statement of what the money is required for, and we must keep to that.

Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand that the £3,310 is only required for the purpose of materials, and has nothing to do with the cost of instruction?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the statement which is put before the Committee, and I must abide by that statement.

6.57 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think there has been some misunderstanding as to the width of the Supplementary Estimate. Under this Sub-head the extra sum required is simply for the purchase of canvas for the making of mail bags. I do not think I should be in order in entering into a wider explanation than is demanded by the Estimate. To set at, rest the mind of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) with regard to the value which is secured from sales, I would point out that the two items in question refer to entirely different subjects. On the one hand the appropriations-in-aid arise from sales made in the past, while the other item is for a fairly large purchase of raw material in order that work may be done upon that material in the future. The hon. Members for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) and Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) have spoken of the interest which they have in the welfare of the people in these prisons, and we wish to say that anything we can reasonably do to facilitate their interest we should certainly wish to do. I am aware of the keen interest which the hon. Members take in these matters, but I do not think I can now enter into a discussion of the details of that welfare work. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals about the sum of £320, of course he will realise that the real expenditure incurred in paying back the cuts is not expressed in that figure, but in the original figure of £83,718. The revised Estimate, which is £320 more, is for an additional small amount that is required to make up the full total. The hon. Member will find that the error works out at something like ¼ per cent., and I do not think he will suggest that that is a large error. As to his anxiety that there should be no general cutting down of wages, I can assure him that there is not.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Nor staff?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Nor staff. I have not the details with me, but I do not think there has been any cutting down of staff to reach the amount which is now asked for.

CLASS III.

APPROVED SCHOOLS, ETC., SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Grants in respect of the expenses of the Managers of Approved Schools, and of the expenses of Education Authorities in Scotland in respect. of children and young persons committed to their care.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: This additional sum is required for the extra amount necessary for the maintenance of the approved schools. I would be glad to answer to the best of my ability any questions which hon. Members wish to raise, but I think that it will be generally agreed that the approved schools must be properly and thoroughly maintained.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. WESTWOOD: We on this side of the Committee will not oppose this particular Vote, but of all the Supplementary Estimates that have been submitted today and will be submitted this is the most disquieting and the most alarming from the Scottish point of view. We are being asked to vote an additional sum of £2,200, of the £4,000 which has just been asked for, "in view of an increasing number of children and young persons committed to the schools, and higher cost of maintaining the schools." I trust that it may be possible for the Under-Secretary to tell us how much of that £2,200 is due to the increasing number of children, and then we shall be in a position to know what is due to the higher cost of maintaining the schools. I will quote, if I am in order—and I have not been ruled out of order to-day—from the last available Prisons Report of Scotland, in which we find a statement which seems to be justified by the Vote to which we are now asked to agree. On page 9 of the Annual Report of the Prisons Department of Scotland it is stated:
As was to be expected, the lack of employment continued to be the prevailing cause ascribed by parents or guardians for the downfall of these young offenders.


Apparently because of unemployment, and particularly because of its operation against young persons in Scotland, we now have this increase—I hope that it is not as alarming as it seems—in the number of young persons who have had to be committed to the approved schools. I find that two of the chief constables in Scotland in quite recent reports have been making the same statement—that it is due to unemployment in Scotland that we have an increasing number of young offenders. The chief constable of Roxburghshire has commented on the fact that actually more than 60 per cent, of the offenders dealt with for crime in Roxburghshire last year were youthful offenders. This is reflected, I presume, in the Vote we are asked to agree to to-night, and it is a rather disturbing state of affairs. Young offenders must be dealt with and you must have the approved schools. I gave notice to the Under-Secretary that I would raise the question of where the approved schools were.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that arises on this occasion.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am sorry that I am ruled out of order; I shall have to reserve it for a future occasion. I do trust that we shall be able to hear what proportion of the £2,200 is due to the increasing number of children and young persons who are committed to the schools, and what proportion is due to the higher cost of maintaining the schools. There should be some big central institution to which we could send children who have to be committed to a school where they would have a chance of starting out in life again in a proper way.

7.6 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Perhaps I might dispose of the hon. Gentleman's question satisfactorily now. The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act of 1932 brought a new age group of young persons of between 16 and 17 into the range of these approved schools. Young persons up to that age could be sent to the approved schools, so that there was an enlargement of the number who could be sent. There were 35 more young persons than were provided for sent to these schools, and we have to make provision for them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is that the figure for the whole of Scotland?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes. That accounts for part of the increased Estimates. I am not able to say for how much, but for less than half of the whole sum required.

Mr. HARDIE: Could the Under-Secretary give us any idea of the increase year by year, apart from the increase brought about by the Act of 1932, due to the conditions under which these children have to live?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think that it would be impossible for me to give an answer on that subject. I have only been able to give the figure of the actual increase.

CLASS IV.

NATIONAL LIBRARY, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £215, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Library, including a Grant in Aid.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): This small additional sum is required under two heads: £63 is due to the restoration of cuts in salary and £199 is due to increases of salary. The increases of salary affect the keeper of the manuscripts and the keeper of printed books. The trustees of the library made representations to the Treasury that these officers were not adequately remunerated. The matter was carefully gone into, and the case for an increase in salary was overwhelmingly strong, when compared with the salaries for similar services in London and elsewhere. That is the only reason for this small additional sum. These two items have been offset by certain savings.

Mr. WESTWOOD: To anything that puts Scotland on an equality with England we have no objection on this side of the Committee.

CLASS V.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, etc., Grant in Aid of the Highlands and islands Medical Service, Grants in Aid of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts; certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, and other Services.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: This small sum of £10 is necessitated by the sum payable to the National Health Insurance Fund of Scotland being larger than was provided for. I believe that that was largely due to an epidemic of influenza and other illness. That, again, is offset by certain savings on grants towards housing expenses.

Mr. WESTWOOD: We on this side of the Committee will not oppose this item.

CLASS VI.

MILK (SCOTLAND).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,150, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for payments in respect of milk used for manufacture in Scotland, payments for improving the quality of the milk supply in Scotland, and contributions towards certain expenses of Milk Marketing Boards in Scotland.

7.12 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: This item requires a word of explanation. Under the Milk Marketing Act, 1934, provision was made for various Exchequer payments to the Milk Marketing Boards in respect of various subjects, in particular milk utilised for the purpose of manufacturing into milk products. Among the Exchequer payments so authorised was one for the purpose of making up the difference between the standard price of milk and what was described as "the appropriate manufacturing price." in the case of milk manufactured by the Milk

Marketing Boards themselves in their own factories. The determining factor in fixing the amount of that payment was the "appropriate milk manufacturing price," and that was defined under the Statute as a sum certifiable by the Secretary of State in accordance with a particular formula which was specified in Section 2 (2) of the Act of 1934. Unfortunately, the terms of that formula created legal difficulties and practical difficulties, and the result was that it proved impossible for the Secretary of State to certify the appropriate manufacturing price for the 1934 milk until after the close of the financial year 1934–35.
These difficulties fortunately have now been overcome. The "appropriate price." has been certified and the claims payable under the Act of 1934 are now due to be met. The purpose of this Vote is to provide the net sum required for the purpose of meeting this year a claim which was unavoidably delayed for the reasons explained. The position is that the Committee are really being asked to re-vote for the purposes of the present financial year a sum which, but for the unfortunate circumstances that I have explained, should appropriately have been covered last year. On these grounds, and simply adding that the payment is one which in certain circumstances will be repayable to the Exchequer, I ask the Committee to agree to the Vote.

Mr. WESTWOOD: After the clear and explicit statement that we have heard we will not oppose the Vote.

7.15 p.m.

Captain W. T. SHAW: In November, 1934, the Secretary of State issued an Order which was intended as a concession to wholesale and retail milk producers under which they were permitted to pay in the shape of a levy. This Order was renewed last year. There have been great changes since 1934. For example, people have died and, because their sons were not producers at that date, they cannot get this concession.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to be entering upon the general question of the administration of the Milk Act, 1934. That does not arise.

CLASS I.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: This small token Vote is for a small additional demand caused by two items. One is a restoration of cuts in salary amounting to £539, and there is another item of £200 due to the fact that the expense of providing shorthand writers for committees proved somewhat heavier than was expected. The total is £739, but it is expected that the Appropriation-in-Aid will be up some £5,200, consequently this is a token Vote only. The remainder of the excess will be paid in the usual way into the Exchequer.

CLASS I.

PRIVY SEAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £570, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: First of all, there is a restoration of cut in the salary of the Lord Privy Seal amounting to £113, and an item of 2480 is caused by the fact that a senior officer of a higher grade has been moved to this office, and that entails an increase in the amount of salaries. One small item that I ought to mention is incidental expenses, £25. The sole cause for that is that when my right hon. Friend who is now Foreign Secretary was Lord Privy Seal these incidental expenses were borne on the Foreign Office Vote, but since he has been gone to the Foreign Office it has been necessary to create this new sub-head.

Mr. WESTWOOD: May we have an explanation of what the Lord Privy Seal is doing? What is he, and where is he?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not on this occasion.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We are being asked to vote an increase of salary for the Lord Privy Seal, and I suppose the Lord Privy Seal is to receive an extra sum from the Exchequer. Surely we are entitled to ask who is the Lord Privy Seal, where he is to he found, and what he is doing?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask who is receiving the salary, but he must remember that on a Supplementary Estimate it is not in order to discuss policy. The question of what the Lord Privy Seal does is a question of policy.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Perhaps we might have the other information. Who is the Lord Privy Seal?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The right hon Gentleman cannot have followed recent political changes. The present Lord Privy Seal exercises the duties of the Leader of the House in another place.

CLASS I.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment durin the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. MORRISON: This increased Estimate is due simply to the fact that the number of candidates for examination by the Civil Service Commission has exceeded expectation. The last total of candidates coming forward is a record, and that has meant certain additional expenditure. Under Sub-head A £445 is due to the restoration of cuts and £750 to additional staff necessitated by expansion in the activities of the commission. Under Sub-head B it has been necessary to provide for more examiners, and also there has been an increase in the number of special medical inspections of ex-Service candidates, and in accordance with settled policy these amounts are paid by the commission and not by the candidates. The incidental expenses are the cost of advertisements, which have increased, and also we have found it necessary to provide new centres of ex-


amination in view of the increased number of candidates coming forward. That applies particularly to the provinces. I am sure it is the wish of the Committee that centres of examination should be available as convenient for the candidates as is reasonably possible. This is a token vote only, owing to the fact that, as regards Appropriations-in-Aid, the original Estimate is expected to be exceeded by some £11,000.

CLASS VII.

RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £136,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, &amp;c., in respect of Property in the occupation of the Crown for the Public Service, and for Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers; and to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: This is an Estimate control of which rests rather with local authorities than with the House. Under settled practice the Treasury makes a contribution in lieu of rates, which is arrived at by treating property as far as possible on the same basis as if it were in private ownership and were assessed for private purposes. The remaining cause of the increase of rates is that the rates have been put up by the local authorities. The total sum is £127,410. The increase in rates in the Metropolitan area is £71,000. What has happened is that the London County Council's precept on the Metropolitan boroughs has been increased by an amount equal to a rate of 10½d. in the pound and the rates of all Metropolitan boroughs have risen. It is in the Metropolitan boroughs, particularly in Westminster, that the great bulk of Government property is congregated. The other items do not amount to very much. As regards Scotland, there have been increased rates levied at Dunfermline and Invergordon, increased assessment at Rosyth and an expansion of Post Office business which has led to an increase in rates. Also we have had to pay certain

arrears of rates, which account altogether for the amount under Sub-head D Under Sub-head E, this small excess in Ireland is due to the rise of 4d. in the pound in the Belfast rates. The same causes account for the increase under Sub-head H. Rates on buildings occupied by representatives of British Dominions. This is a contribution to local revenue which it is outside our power to control. If the rates go up, we have to make an increased contribution. That is the sole cause for the additional sum.

Mr. DUNCAN: Thanks to the Socialist Government in London we have to pay £73,900 in rates this year over and above what we estimated for. I hope when the time comes for another election London will not have to pay increased rates.

Mr. AMMON: It is not us; it is the borough of Westminster.

CLASS VII.

STATIONERY AND PRINTING.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £235,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The Stationery Office acts as agent for printing for other Government Departments and its expenditure is determined entirely by the demands made upon it by those Departments. This increased sum is caused entirely by an increase in the activity of certain Departments which has involved a great deal amount of printing and greater expenditure in the way of raw materials than was originally estimated. Under Sub-head A, Salaries, it is the familiar item "Restoration of Cuts" which accounts for £2,600. There is also a figure of £8,100 due to the fact that it was found necessary to take on additional staff in the printing and other departments. Sub-head E refers to paper. Our original Estimate is exceeded by £93,000. This appears a heavy item, but it is due to the fact that in the last quarter of


last year immense demands were made upon the stocks of paper on account of fresh printing required for the Unemployment Assistance Board and other Departments. Our stocks were brought low and this sum became necessary to replace them. As regards printing, the excess is £73,000, also due to the extended activities of the various Departments; the Post Office has made very largely increased demands on the Stationery Office for printing and so have the Air Ministry and others.
Sub-head G—Binding is really because of the same increase in activity, but £2,000 under this particular sub-head is due to the fact that there has been an effort made recently to overtake the arrears of binding necessary in the British Museum. A great part of the binding work in the British Museum is done by the skilled men at the Stationery Office, and we have to try to overtake arrears, and that has caused this expenditure. Under Sub-head H—Books and Maps, £3,000 more is required owing to additional requirements of certain defence departments. The item "Miscellaneous Office Supplies and Services." includes things like typewriters, copying machines and various mechanical devices such as are now used in large offices. That cannot be regarded as entirely an expenditure without result, because it leads to increased efficiency and to economy in the long run.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: We do not propose to challenge the Supplementary Estimate which has just been submitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We agree with him that, on the face of it, the sum which the Committee is now asked to vote appears to be somewhat large, but the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman certainly appears to indicate that, whatever is now being asked for, is justified in order to secure the efficiency which this Department succeeds in giving. I note that under Sub-head E—Paper, there are these words:
Departmental forms and circulars, instruction, etc., hooks, pamphlets, etc.
What relation has the word "instruction" to the other words used under that particular sub-heading? Are they

books of instruction or some kind of instruction which has been given inside the Department for the carrying out of the duties of the Stationery Office? Under Sub-head I—Miscellaneous Office Supplies and Services, £25,000 is shown as expenditure on calculating and other machinery, and it appears to be a comparatively large sum. I wonder whether, following upon the introduction of this number of calculating machines, there is likely to be any reorganisation of staff in consequence of the introduction of mechanical devices. I shall be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain these further points.

Mr. DUNCAN: I do not quarrel with the Supplementary Estimate. When the Estimates Committee examined the estimates of the Public Records Office it was found that the printing of the Record Office was very much behind hand because the Stationery Office had to do it in between their other work, and I wonder whether part of the sum now required is due to acceleration of work for the Record Office?

7.33 p.m.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: The comparison between Sub-heads E—Paper and F—Printing is not clear to me. The sum of £93,000 for paper seems to be a very heavy addition, and one would expect it to have some relation to the item for printing of £73,000. I find that £50,000 of the printing expenses is actually in respect of contract work for which presumably no paper will need to be purchased by the Department. That leaves only 223,000 for printing at the Stationery Office printing works. One has to take into consideration under Sub-head E the sum of £52,000 for Departmental stationery, which seems to be an extraordinarily additional expense. It has hardly been accounted for at all in the explanation given by the Financial Secretary. Leaving that out of account, there is still £41,000 worth of paper as compared with only 223,000 worth of printing done by the Stationery Office. When I consider the necessarily expensive operation of printing and the highly skilled labour which is employed, I am still a little in the dark as to how this very large sum for paper has been necessitated, and I should be obliged if the hon. and learned Gentleman would give some further explanation.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts) will look at Sub-head E he will see that it is meant to read:
Departmental forms and circulars, instruction, etc., books, pamphlets, etc.
I do not think that he need have any fear that the introduction of calculating machinery will lead to re-organisation of the staff in the sense in which he fears. Most of the staff are established civil servants, and the introduction of the machines means that the work will be done more expeditiously. I am unable to answer my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) as regards the Record Office work and to say definitely whether it has been done, but I will make inquiries and find out. I do not think that it is realised that the Stationery Office conducts a vast business, including the printing of the whole of the Telephone Directory for the Metropolitan area and for all parts of the Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) will bear that in mind, he will see that it is very difficult to draw any definite conclusions from the comparison of printing and paper costs to which he directs attention. I do not know whether he heard my explanation of the £93,000 for paper, but the fact is that the Stationery Office has always to carry a very large stock of paper, so that the amount which appears in any account for paper includes, of course, the stocks on hand. He may take it that there will be a carry over of paper actually purchased which might render the sums disproportionate. I hope that I have made the matter clear to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: I notice that it is mentioned that part of the increased expenditure is due to an increase on Reports of Parliamentary Debates. Does that mean the copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT, or does it include all kinds of Parliamentary reports?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee whether or not the printing of the new Regulations under Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934, and their withdrawal

involved the nation in a huge loss and consumption of extra paper, which perhaps may or may not have had something to do with the increased Estimates.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The Parliamentary publications which are mentioned include many sorts of Parliamentary publications. The OFFICIAL REPORT is printed by the Stationery Office at one place, but in addition a large number of White Papers and the Estimates and so on are printed there also, and the Estimate includes all that comes under the heading of Parliamentary Papers in the ordinary sense. I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) off-hand. I am satisfied that the printing operations of the Stationery Office are conducted with great economy and foresight, and I have not the least doubt that if any loss was involved it would be rendered as small as possible.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: It is hardly fair for the hon. and learned Gentleman to come before the Committee and ask for money without being able to explain for what purpose it is to be used. He should tell the Committee what is meant by the sum of £25,000 for calculating and other machinery. Is it the intention of the Government Departments to go in for calculating machinery? If so, the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to tell us what effect it has upon the staff. There is another item which no hon. Member would allow to go by if he were examining a balance sheet as a shareholder—the item called Office Sundries amounting to £8,500. What is this sum? If we could obtain answers to these questions perhaps we should be able to expedite progress with regard to the Estimates.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The hon. Member upbraids me for not explaining this matter, but I would point out to him that I dealt with it in the first place.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon.

CLASS VII.

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.

7.43 p.m.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The three sub-heads in this Vote consist of increased rents and increased charges for furniture for Inland Revenue buildings and for Post Office and Telegraph buildings. The increased rents are entirely due to one building. It was our intention at the earliest possible moment to take over the new south-west wing of Bush House, Aldwych, in the Strand, to relieve the very severe congestion of the Inland Revenue Department at Somerset House. We accordingly estimated that we should not get in until later in the year, but, fortunately, the building was ready sooner than we expected. It meant that the rent, which is £25,000 per year, began at an earlier date, and in order to pay the rent of Bush House we had to pay an additional £9,000 on the sum anticipated when the Estimate was originally made out. The furniture is for the Revenue Offices and Post Offices respectively, the reason for the increase in furniture required for the Revenue buildings is that originally provision was made for properly equipping 65 new offices of the Inland Revenue, and we have been able to equip for the better use of the public using the Inland Revenue offices for Income Tax and other purposes 95 offices in the year, and that accounts for the increase in the amount required for the furniture of the Inland Revenue offices.
The Post Office and Telegraph increase is entirely due to the additional equipment required by the Postmaster-General, which has to be provided by my Department for what is called the regionisation of the Post Offices of the North-East of England and of Scotland. The regional offices have been extended in the Edinburgh and Leeds areas, in

Aberdeen, Dundee, Bradford, Lincoln, Middlesbrough, Sheffield and York, and we have had to find furniture and equipments for these developments of Post Office organisation.

CLASS VII.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: This Supplementary Estimate is entirely due to the increased cost of the work on Mr. Speaker's house. The completion of the work on Mr. Speaker's residence was included in the programme which had been drawn up last January year, but as the work progressed it became apparent that the condition of the stone in this part of the building was considerably worse than that in similar portions of the Houses of Parliament previously dealt with. We also found that the front of the residence overlooking Mr. Speaker's court, which is the most elaborate of the inner courts, proved to be exceptionally difficult to deal with. We found that the large oriel window in the centre, over the front door, was completely unsafe. It had to be taken out and entirely rebuilt, the stone being rotten throughout. These difficulties resulted in the postponing of the date for the completion of the work on Mr. Speaker's residence from December, 1934, to the Easter Recess, that is, in a few weeks time. On this occasion I may say that it will be possible for Mr. Speaker at last to resume occupation during the coming Easter Recess. The work could only have been deferred or slowed down for the next financial year and so have avoided a Supplementary Estimate, by inflicting further inconvenience upon Mr. Speaker and by interfering unduly with the economic progress of the work as a whole. I hope the Committee will give me this additional Vote.

Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

MILK (EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of periods for Exchequer payments under ss. 1, 2 and 3 of principal Act.)

7.48 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "eighteen," and to insert "six."
We do not desire to take much time on the Committee stage of this Bill. We recognise that we had a considerable discussion on the Money Resolution and on the Second Reading of the Bill, but for the purpose of the point which we desire to raise we have put down our Amendment. If we can get some assurance with regard to the long-term policy of the Government on this question we shall not press the Amendment to a Division. The Minister of Agriculture in dealing with the Bill on the Money Resolution and on the Second Reading said that he required the period of 18 months in order that he might prepare something more in the nature of a long-term policy. It is about time that we knew what the long-term policy is going to be. The public is very anxious that there shall not be a reptition, at the end of the current. milk year in September, of the threatened breakdown which came in September, 1935. We heard a great deal at that time about what was called a threatened milk strike, and we are very anxious that what happened then shall not be repeated, especially in the case of a scheme which is largely subject to the granting of public funds.
We think that it is incumbent upon the Minister, in considering the report of the Committee of Investigation under Section 9 of the Marketing Act, which he will be receiving shortly, and also in receiving the report of the Reorganisation Commission, which I think is still in session—it might be gingered up a little, for it has been sitting a long time—that he should seriously reconsider some of the main constitutional provisions dealing with the present control of the milk

industry in this country. Our experience from the distributive side goes to prove very conclusively the wisdom of what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir Edward Grigg) when he presided over the first Reorganisation Commission and, with a considerable amount of vision led his commission to report that it was essential, in building up the control of this industry on a permanent basis, that there should be cooperation and good will, and that for that purpose there should be some form of joint control.
If we are continuing the granting of public money to this industry it is essential that in the public interest and not in the interest of one section only control should be made efficient and of such a character that it is not likely to break down, as it threatened to break down last September. Let me say at once, in fairness to the Minister, that I recognise that it was probably largely his own action as Minister in September, 1935, which prevented a final breakdown, but it ought never to have happened in such a great industry that it was necessary for the Minister to intervene. There ought to have been machinery for dealing with the situation. If the Milk Marketing Board had agreed at once to arbitration there would have been no difficulty. May I say, from very painful personal experience of 36 days sittings that I am anxious to avoid a repetition of that proceeding? I hope, therefore, in consideration of the long-term policy, that we may have a little more stability in the arrangements than we had on that occasion.
We regard it as fundamental, if you are to go on granting public money for the purpose of reorganisation this industry, that that reorganisation should include a reorganisation of milk production itself. If we take the actual facts during the period, say, of the last three and a-half years, that is, the year antecedent to the operations of the Milk Marketing Board and two and a-half years after the beginning of the operations of the Board, we see a considerable increase of the gallon-age of milk produced in this country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is using this Amendment as one on which to hang a substantial argument. I am prepared to agree that he should do so, but on the understanding that the argument shall not again be


raised when I put the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. I want to make the position of the Chair quite clear.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is very reasonable. I have no intention of delaying the Committee at any length, and I should not think of referring to this matter again. The fact is that milk production has increased. It has increased in spite of what has been termed by the milk producers themselves low contract prices. On the other hand we have to remember the statements made in "The Home Farmer," the Milk Marketing Board's own journal, that there are numbers of farmer-producers—I use the word from the editorial comment—who are "dazzled." by the present high contract prices. We shall not get stability and ordered progress in the industry if we arc to get a considerable increase in the production of milk, whilst retaining the present amount of restriction on the distribution of milk at a price which the people can afford to pay. We shall have not only dissatisfaction in the public mind with regard to the price that they have to pay for liquid milk, but we shall give no satisfaction to the producers themselves in the final net return of their farms, because of the pooling of large surpluses of milk which are put into manufacture at a loss. There is no reason to take a long time to produce a constructive policy of reorganisation. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter from the information which will be available to him in the report of the Committee of Investigation shortly to be laid before him.
I would stress the point that I or my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) made in the previous Debate, that in the case of those producers who are registered in what is called the accredited milk scheme there are any number of them whose returns show, according to the evidence submitted to the Milk Investigation Committee, that they produced milk at as low as 61½ to 7½ a gallon on the average all the year round. I recognise that because of difference in the conditions of the farms, the soil, rent, many of them being contiguous to industrial areas, other costs of milk production may be much higher, but in this House it would

be difficult for us to be convinced that if in some parts of the, country accredited milk can be produced at 6½d. or 7½d. gallon it should be necessary for it to cost as much as 1s. 3d. a gallon in other parts of the country. That side of the industry wants very careful attention and reorganisation, and none of the negotiations that the Minister or his advisers may have with the overseas market authorities and the Ottawa countries concerned, can put this matter really right unless you are prepared to get real, basic efficiency in the industry itself in production and distribution.
I feel that on the very important question of the social distribution of this important foodstuff we have put our views at length before the House, but on this question of a long-term policy and the efficient organisation of the industry, we feel that we must be insistent. Therefore, we ask, first, that there should be a reconsideration by the Minister of the constitution and that it, should be made of a joint character, so that it should be communal in outlook and in management, instead of having a monopolistic, sectional control, and, secondly, that the Minister should give urgent and immediate attention to the question of the efficiency of home production and distribution, and not rely solely upon further protective or restrictive measures in regard to dairy products from overseas.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: I want to ask one question of the Minister. Parliament is asked to continue these payments for another 18 months, and I would like to know why it is that at the same time there are allowed to come into this country vast quantities of skimmed milk, which must compete with the milk which is being produced in this country. I have been looking at the Board of Trade returns for the month of January last, and I find that sweetened or skimmed milk coming in for the month of January alone amounted to 92,000 gallons. This is not a question of food, because that skimmed milk, I believe, has to be marked, "Unfit for children." Really it is therefore unfit for food, but undoubtedly it is bought by the very poor and extensively used by them, and I want to know why that importation is being continued while at the same time we are encouraging the production of


milk here. We are voting money for the production of milk and allowing in this sweetened, skimmed milk, which is not milk at all, and it seems to me that the two policies cannot be logical and that one of them must be wrong.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. HOPKIN: I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) if he can give me some information following on what he has said. I understand that evidence was given to the Investigation Committee to show that when you take, all through the country, the amount of profit per gallon that is left to the farmer, it is not, as I understand my right hon. Friend said, over 3d., taking the basis of 6½ as the price of production, but 0.66d. I shall be glad if it is possible for my right hon. Friend to inform the Committee if that is so, because, if it is so, was this 0.66d., which is a little over a halfpenny, fixed giving the farmer a wage of 31s. 6d. and not allowing anything at all for his profit as a manager of an industry?

8.5 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not think my hon. Friend has quite got the argument. I made no reference at all to the net profit per gallon of the farmer out of production, but I commented upon the extraordinary spread between the cost of milk production as between 6½d. and 1s. 3d., and I am only asking that the Minister, in his consideration of a long-term policy, should see what can be done to improve the efficiency of production and to avoid that wide spread between the 62d. and the is. 3d.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. W. ROBERTS: I wish to support the Amendment, because I feel that 18 months is an unnecessarily long time to allow this subsidy to continue. I would like to put forward one suggestion, which has not, I think, been brought out so far—one reason why I suggest that six months is long enough for the operation of the present Act. The Minister, in his speech the other day, suggested that the industry of manufacturing dairy products was an important industry, and I think we are all agreed with him on that matter. It represents in gallonage one-third of the total production of milk on British farms, but this subsidy is being given entirely

without any respect to the quality of the produce. I suggest that within six months it might be possible for the Minister to devise some scheme by which the subsidy would only be paid on dairy produce manufactured in this country of a high quality.
At present the manufacture of creamery butter in this country is a relatively new industry. Hitherto the butter which has been made in England has been mainly made on the farm itself and has considerably varied in quality, which has given a real advantage to some of our competitors, both in the Dominions and in foreign countries, who have marketed here butter of a high standard of quality, and of a quality which has appealed to the palate of the British consumer. It seems to me that there is an opportunity now of developing in this country a butter industry which will be in a position to compete with those overseas supplies. I think it would be possible so to frame the subsidy for dairy manufacture, if that is desirable, as to encourage a standardised article. It has been done in every country which supplies butter and cheese to this country. To take one example, no butter may be exported from Denmark unless it carries the Government hallmark of quality, and the same is true of New Zealand cheese, which at present commands, I believe, a higher price than cheese made and marketed in this country.
Attempts are being made to standardised various grades, and in that connection I would like to compliment the Scottish Milk Marketing Board on their new brand of butter, which, I believe, will find a popular and ready market. But I suggest that the principle that only the highest quality produce should receive this Government subsidy, that if the taxpayers' money is to be directed towards the encouragement of manufacturing dairy products, that money should be used to ensure that a standard graded article is put on the market—I feel that that is a general principle with which the Committee generally must agree. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment, in order to give the Minister, not 18 months, but six months in which to produce a policy.
With regard to cheese, that also is to some extent an industry which is being carried on newly by the Milk Marketing Board, and in my part of the country


we have a cheese factory run by the board, to which I for one wish the greatest success. We producers have not been told exactly what the position of that factory is, and there is among farmers in that district considerable doubt as to whether the factory is running successfully or not. In developing cheese-making by the board, again I suggest that the proper procedure is only to reward with a subsidy that cheese which is of a grade and quality which does justice to home produce. There is the framework in the national mark, the basis of a graded article, and the machinery necessary for inspection of a graded and standardised article. There is a butter scheme, which I believe has been working now for about a year, and there are national mark cheese schemes of various sorts, and it is not asking too much of the Minister, I feel, that these schemes, which are already there in embryo, although they are at present only voluntary, should be developed in the next few months, so that if, at the end of six months, a subsidy is still necessary, that subsidy should be directed only to the encouragement of quality produce. It is for these reasons that I support the Amendment.

8.13 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I recognise that the Committee, knowing that we have had an exhaustive discussion on this subject already, does not desire that we should have a similarly exhaustive discussion on this occasion. I readily recognise also the brief and businesslike manner in which up till now all the speeches have been made, and I will do my best to be equally businesslike in reply. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), speaking of the long-term policy, said that the country desired no risk of any breakdown in the arrangements such as might have taken place last September, but I am sure he will see that a very short term, such as six months, would be just the sort of thing which would keep the industry in a constant turmoil and, I think, greatly raise the risk of another breakdown in the following autumn. It is desirable that we should have time to consider both the report of the Committee of Investigation, which I may say has not yet been received, but which will need a great

deal of consideration both by myself and by others, and the very important report of the Reorganisation Commission, which also we have not yet received.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Commission had been a very long time. It has taken its time to consider this very important problem. Experts of the highest repute are silting upon it—Sir John Orr is a member of it—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not desire either that that Commission should be hurried in its conclusions or that we should be hurried in our consideration of those conclusions, for it may well be that legislation of a most important character may have to be drafted as a result of the various deliberations which are going on at the present time on the milk industry. As a practical man he knows that the prospect of framing and passing a major measure between now and the end of the Session or betwen May and the end of the Session is practically negligible.
If the industry is to have an opportunity of considering these important matters, and if the country also is to have an opportunity of considering them, clearly we cannot attempt to begin to sum up and bring together the result of all these deliberations before next Autumn, and then we have to begin drafting legislation to be presented to this House for its consideration. To say that we should bring all these proposals to an end in July would clearly be telescoping the consideration which ought to be given into a very small compass indeed. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish me to defend the proposal of 18 months as against six at any great length. He himself said that he was doing this more for the purpose of eliciting information and, if possible, a declaration from the Minister rather than with any desire to press the Amendment to a Division. The right hon. Gentleman said that we ought seriously to consider the constitutional position of the industry and mentioned that the Grigg Commission had reported in favour of some form of joint control. I would point out that joint control would involve important legislation. I shall take into consideration the recommendations of the Grigg Commission which were put into practice and also those which were not put into practice when I am considering the reports of the Committee of Investigation and the Reorganisation Commission. I hope he


will be satisfied with that assurance so far as the question of the constitutional position of the industry is concerned.
He further pointed out that the money spent by the public in promoting the milk industry might lead to an unlimited expansion of the industry leading to a weighing down of the pool price by masses of manufacturing milk and consequently an automatic lifting up of liquid milk prices so as to put them out of the reach of the general public. He said that this was a problem which the Minister would have seriously to consider. Already suggestions have been proposed by the Milk Board to deal with the matter. I agree that it is an important question and will require close consideration, and it is one of the matters which we shall take into thorough review when we are considering the character of the long-term legislation which is to be laid before the House in due course. He quoted some figures as to the costs of production but he will adroit that the figures he gave were admittedly the minimum, and it would be hopeless to expect one thousand million gallons of milk to be produced at anything like that figure. We must have a figure which is sufficient to keep production going. The main object should be to secure a good supply of milk at a reasonable price rather than an over supply of milk which does not make milk production remunerative for the average producer.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is the whole trouble. The present contract prices as fixed by the board are so high that the prices to the consumers prevent the expansion of liquid consumption.

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member will agree that no producer at 1s. 3d. per gallon, the present pool price, is likely to stay indefinitely in the business of production. The right hon. Gentleman asks me if I would consider the constitutional position of the industry in any legislation. I can give him that assurance, and also that I will consider the question of home production. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) asked why the imports of skimmed milk were allowed to come into this country. I do not think we can say that they are unfit for food; it is food of a kind which it would be quite wrong to bar on the ground that it was unfit for human consumption, but the whole question of

imports must be considered under our trade agreements. The hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) dealt with the question of quality, with which I have great sympathy. I hope he will excuse me if I do not deal with that matter now because he will be raising that matter on the next Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: It may be well for the right hon. Gentleman to know that that Amendment will not be called.

Mr. ELLIOT: No doubt the hon. Member for Cumberland acquainted himself with your probable decision, but his hereditary Parliamentary instinct allowed him to make a speech which was not quite in order. The question of quality will receive our careful consideration, but in a Bill of a temporary character we cannot make amendments such as he has in mind. Improvement in quality is very important, and the industry is taking steps to organise and improve the quality. I prefer that improvement should come through the industry itself rather than be forced from the industry by amendments to a financial arrangement of this kind.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We do not desire to press the Amendment to the Division, and we are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the promise he has made to give serious consideration to the report of the Reorganisation Commission and the report of the Committee of Investigation. We recognise the extreme difficulty of extracting order out of the existing chaos, and when we remember that the committee sat for 26 days and that when they have made their report there is a multiplicity of problems, Dominion and consumers problems, and all the rest of them, we should not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be able to provide us with a long-term policy in a very short space of time. But what we want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman is that for two years this subsidy has been available. It was hoped that during that period the consumption of liquid milk would increase and that a large amount of milk would be consumed by those in whom a milk consciousness had been created. Now, at the end of nearly two years, the right hon. Gentleman finds that instead of about 192,000,000 gallons


being sent for manufacture, there are 301,000,000 gallons available for manufacture. This involves two things. In the first place, there is a tendency to reduce the full price paid to the producers; and, secondly, there is a tendency to create a factory capacity for the manufacture of cheese, butter, dried milk, condensed milk and so on, which will be out of all proportion to the amount of milk sold at the smaller price which ought to be available if the full price is going to be a reasonable one for the producer, and if liquid milk is to be sold at a reasonable price to the consumer.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind two things in all his deliberations. First of all, there is need for a greater consumption of liquid milk. Whatever may be the Government's long-term policy, it must largely be based upon the consumption of liquid milk as distinct from milk which is sent to the factories for manufacture into any one of the other dairy products. It is to that end that we have on previous occasions submitted our proposals with regard to the free supply of milk to elementary school children. The organisation for all this will not be easy, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. It would be far better in the end if we could devise a scheme—even though it cost a few million pounds—than it would be if we concentrated merely upon extreme efficiency at the factory end.
The second thing I want the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind is that if the quantities available for factory purposes continue to increase, even for a temporary period, and if new factories continue to spring up, as apparently they are doing at the moment, we shall be left in the end—perhaps at the moment the right hon. Gentleman produces his long-term policy—with a factory capacity greater than the quantity of milk that the right hon. Gentleman wants to see sent to the factories for manufacture. In that case we shall find ourselves in the same position as we are now in with regard to the sugar beet factories. The sugar beet factories' capacity increased and measures were introduced to allow the people owning refineries and factories to cancel off so many of the factories by means of quotas and so on. I do not want to see the right hon. Gentleman allow new creameries and new factories to be

erected only to find that when he produces his long-term policy he. will have to introduce a further Bill to permit of the buying and selling of quotas and the compensating of factories out of existence.
We think that at all events the policy of the country—as distinct from the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, or my own policy, or that of any political party—ought to be concentrated on the consumption of the maximum quantity of liquid milk, and that only such quantities as may remain available after the liquid milk requirements have all been supplied should be diverted to factories. As this Measure is to last for 18 months, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not only warn the Milk Marketing Board of the dangers that lie ahead, but will warn other would-be erectors of factories that the policy of the country when it ultimately emerges will be concentrated upon the consumption of liquid milk and not upon manufacture. If the right hon. Gentleman will bear those facts in mind during the next 18 months, I am quite sure it will ultimately redound not only to his credit but to the health and wellbeing of the industry and the consumers of liquid milk.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. RILEY: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us specifically whether the Government's long-term policy has in view the problem of making an increasing supply of liquid milk available for consumption. In the Debates which took place last week and on previous occasions on the question of milk policy, I think it became more and more apparent that one of the big problems involved within the milk problem is the step that should be taken, in dealing with the increasing capacity for production, to place that production at the service of the people who require it. I have in mind in saying this—and it is a point I want to press on the Minister—some specific cases. Only yesterday I was assured by the chief officer of the West Riding County Council that within the jurisdiction of that council there are over 80 villages in which not a single school has the daily ration of milk for children. The reason given by the officer was that the terms on which the milk is available are such that in these villages nobody will take on the distribution. For instance, the chief officer said


that the terms are that the producer-distributor or distributor alone is allowed under the scheme 6d. per gallon. Each gallon has to be put into no less than 24 separate bottles. Consequently the producer-distributor or distributor who undertakes to supply schools on the terms laid down has to make a capital outlay for bottles in the first place. Then he has to bottle the milk, 24 bottles to the gallon; he has to provide each bottle with a straw and a cap; he has to collect the bottles afterwards and to sterilise them; and for all that he gets 6d. per gallon of 24 bottles.
That is the practical difficulty, and where there are small villages the question of transport is also involved. Where there are comparatively small attendances in schools the present system does not afford the supplier an economic basis on which to work. We have to bear in mind that, despite all that is being done, out of 6,000,000 children of elementary school age, less than 3,000,000 have available the daily ration of milk. What are the Government going to do in their long-term policy? The Committee is entitled to know specifically what the Government visualise in that direction because it is in that direction that the solution of the milk problem lies.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member will not expect me on this occasion to go into details about the long-range policy of the Government. We are asking for an extension and I realise that he wants to know whether it is our desire to ensure the maximum consumption of liquid milk in this country. I can assure him that such is our desire and I think the Parliamentary Secretary, in his references to this problem of the supply of milk to schools, made the position clear. It is a subject which has also received a great deal of consideration from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and he, no doubt, will be able to give the hon. Member a great deal of information upon it if they discuss it outside after our debate. But, as I say, he will not expect me to go further to-night than to say that that is strongly our desire, and that it is with the object of working out such a policy to the full that we ask for this extension.

Mr. ALEXANDER: In view of the undertaking which I gave to the Chairman and to the Minister I do not wish to prolong this Debate, and having heard the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Thursday.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [24th February.]

Resolutions reported.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1935.

1. "That an additional number, not exceeding 3,500 officers, seamen, boys and Royal Marines, be employed for the Sea Service, borne on the books of His Majesty's ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions and at Royal Air Force establishments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, beyond the number already provided in the Navy Estimates for the year.
2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,850,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year, including expenditure consequent upon the special measures taken in connection with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1935.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,350,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year, including expenditure consequent upon the special measures taken in connection with the Italo-Ahyssinian dispute.
4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge (reduced by a sum not exceeding £35,000 to be transferred from the Supplies Suspense Account), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for expenditure beyond the sum already granted for the Service of the Royal Ordnance Factories.

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1935.

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,611,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year, including expenditure consequent upon the special measures taken in connection with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

8.43 p.m.

Mr. AMMON: A considerable time was spent yesterday in debating this Supplementary Estimate for men and it is not proposed to repeat what has already been said. I will content myself by moving that the number in the Resolution be reduced by 100.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Gentleman is not taking the right course. He cannot move an Amendment of that kind now. The Question has been put "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution", and the only thing he can do is to vote against it.

Mr. AMMON: I beg to move, to leave out "£4,850,000"and to insert instead thereof "£4,849,900."
I take this opportunity of asking the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to some of the definite questions which were raised during the Debate of yesterday evening. In particular, perhaps, he will acquaint the House of where in the Estimates we are to find particulars relating to the purchase of the motor torpedo boats referred to as mosquito craft and also the trawlers.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that under these Estimates the Admiralty is purchasing 20 more trawlers. I have the honour to represent one of the largest fishing ports, and I have some relevant observations to make on the policy of the Admiralty in purchasing these vessels. Ever since the War the fishing fleet,

especially the steam trawling fishing fleet, has deteriorated in almost every port in Great Britain. In particular, in the constituency which I represent these vessels have become worse and worse from the seaworthy point of view. The relevance of this to the Vote before us is this. If the Admiralty is going to fulfil its requirements for auxiliary vessels by purchasing steam trawlers now in the fleet, they are, in effect, taking the cream of quality till those that are left will become worse in quality and in seaworthy efficiency in comparison. If the Admiralty want to get 20 more trawlers, they ought not to buy them from the existing fishing fleet, but build them. In that way they would not reduce the quality of the fishing fleet and would give employment in a quarter where it is badly needed. If the Admiralty were to find it necessary to recruit as many patrol vessels as they required in 1914, they would receive a severe shock when they examined the quality of the fishing fleet round these islands.
Since I have been returned to the House I have drawn the attention of the President of the Board of Trade and of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to the appalling conditions which obtain in those fleets. Day after day I have been put off by suggestions that the Sea Fish Commission is about to report. In December it is going to report in January, in January it is going to report in February, and when I ask the Minister at the end of this month, I am sure he will tell us that very prospective report will come out in March or April. If it is so important for the Minister to equip the Fleet with 20 auxiliary trawlers, it is important to see that the principle on which he does it is an efficient one. What will be the use of having 20 vessels if an emergency develops and he wanted 500 or more and found he could not get them by going into every port in Great Britain?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not sure whether this is in order on this Vote. This is a Supplementary Estimate which I am not sure applies to the matter which the hon. Member is raising.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: I am given to understand that 20 steam trawlers have been purchased under the Vote. It appears in Vote 8, Section III, K, "Purchase of ships, vessels, etc., £329,000."


I think that this is an ideal opportunity to discuss—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As I read this Supplementary Estimate, it all has to do with services consequent on special measures taken in connection with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute. The point which the hon. Member is raising can, I think, only come on the original Estimate.

Mr. KELLY: Last night we were told by the Noble Lord that the Admiralty had purchased 20 trawlers and had also purchased some motor torpedo vessels, not for the Italo-Abyssinian dispute, but for some new force the Admiralty were operating in the Navy.

Mr. AMMON: May I call attention to the second paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum, which contains the words:
and covering authority for the purchase of six motor torpedo boats and twenty trawlers.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If that be so, the hon. Member will be in order.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): They were bought arising out of the emergency. They are referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum and also in Vote 8.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Whether or not they were bought for the emergency or for more general purposes, they were bought, and my remarks are equally relevant to either case. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to ask the Minister to collaborate with the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in giving serious attention to the state of the fishing fleet. It is made worse to the extent that he is purchasing 20 of the best vessels. If this policy is continued, he will purchase a further 20, and so on. To a certain extent, admittedly, these trawlers will be replaced by good class vessels, but to a greater extent they will be replaced by vessels of an inferior character. Therefore, by purchasing the best vessels from the fleet the Admiralty is damaging the standard of the steam trawling fleet round the islands. That is a serious matter. The condition of some of these ships is really appalling. I know a little about steam trawlers; I have frequently sailed in

them and taken part in their work, and I have spent days and weeks examining the condition of ships in my constituency of Aberdeen.
I ask the Minister to give his attention to it from this point of view. The kind of vessels he will need in the Fleet are first-class up-to-date steam trawlers properly equipped with the necessary apparatus and with crews who are capable of using sextants and charts and who are skilled navigators of a higher type than the average in the fishing fleet. Something ought to be done in peace time to improve the standards of equipment of these vessels. We are constantly hearing of the importance of the Navy, and I do not wish to say anything contrary to it. I admit that it is important, but it seems to me a strange contrast that emergency and urgency characterise the Front Bench when they are seeking to defend the country, but there is no atmosphere of urgency when we are trying to improve the conditions under which these men obtain their daily bread. We are asked to put off our requirements almost indefinitely, and I shall be quite content if, by this small contribution, I have awakened the Admiralty to the great importance—I mean this in all seriousness —of attending to the quality of the fishing fleet and persuading the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to do all they can to improve it. I was not prepared for this subject to come on to-night, and I shall have much longer and more detailed observations, documented chapter and verse, when the particular Votes are under discussion, but I could not allow the representative of the Admiralty to leave here to-night without bringing this matter to his notice.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: I wish to put two simple questions to the Noble Lord, one of which I asked him last night but to which, unfortunately, I did not receive an answer that was as to the capability of the seven new destroyers to defend themselves against air attack. I well remember in the last Election the Prime Minister telling the electors that it was necessary to rebuild the Fleet, to spend a large sum of money, because the Fleet was not capable of defending itself against attacks from the air. During the last week I have observed in a certain


daily paper several possibly rather wild statements to the effect that our, Fleet in the Mediterranean was in danger from air attack, and I wish to ask whether there is any truth whatever in those statements, and if the seven new destroyers will be capable of defending themselves against air attack. I also wish to ask whether the Admiralty have made any experiments during the last three or four years with regard to air attacks on naval ships; whether they have experimented as the Americans have; whether they have built ships with sloping decks and tried the effects of bombs on those sloping decks.
I wish to know whether the Admiralty are really alive to the danger of air attack on naval ships. I want re-assuring on that matter. Under Vote 4 I see the item "Grant to Air Votes." The Admiralty appear to be granting to the Air Ministry a sum of nearly £2,000,000—an increase of £120,000—and I assume, I hope I am wrong, that this is in respect of aircraft carriers. That would mean, in other words, that the Admiralty are paying the Air Ministry approximately £2,000,000 in order to run their aircraft carriers for them. I wish to ask the Noble Lord whether he is satisfied that everything is happy in that direction; whether the relations between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry are perfectly harmonious; whether the two Services are working together; because, unfortunately, I have heard many rumours to the contrary, and I should welcome a denial from my Noble Friend.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I should like an explanation about the increase in the wages of men in navy yards abroad, which comes under Vote 8. It amounts to some £262,000. May we be told whether it refers to Malta, to Hong Kong, to Burmuda or Simons Town, and whether we have increased the staffs employed there? Probably I should not have asked this question had I not noticed in item A an increase of £10,000 for salaries and allowances. I take that to be for the restoration of the "cut" which was wrongly made in 1931. A little lower down, at F, there is an item "Wages etc. of men." It is curious that the items should be divided up in that way, and I hope the Noble Lord will give

us an explanation of them. With regard to the items from A to K on page 7, including the fuelling of the Fleet, are they due to increased prices paid for these materials—timber, metal, electrical apparatus and so forth, or due to the use of increased quantities of these materials? I am wondering whether those who supply these materials have taken the opportunity to increase prices by reason of the existing conditions. That observation would also apply to Vote 8, Section III—the items there are considerable in amount. There is one other item, the Royal Naval Torpedo Works at Rosyth. Are those works being extended, and does this mean that the extension mentioned is the limit to which the Admiralty are going there or is it the intention to increase the establishment still further?

9.1 p.m.

Mr. MARKLEW: I do not think I should have intervened had not the question of trawlers been raised, and I have only one question to put to the Minister, concerning the men engaged in fishing on trawlers. From 200 to 250 men will have lost their jobs as fishermen on the trawlers which the Admiralty have appropriated, and bearing in mind that no provision is made for them in the matter of unemployment benefit I should like to know whether the Admiralty have considered the question of granting any compensation to the crews of those vessels and whether there is any provision for such compensation in the Estimates? If the hon. Member for Grimsby (Sir W. Womersley) had been in the House I am sure he would have been the first to raise this question, in the interests of the fishermen, to whom the country owes so much. They are a class of people with whom I am proud to be associated as a resident of that town, the largest fishing port in the whole world.

9.3 p.m.

Lord STANLEY: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) can hardly expect me to follow him into the two problems which he raised—the future of the Fleet Air Arm and the question of the power of the Navy to resist attacks from the air, though I should be prepared to answer those questions fully at a more opportune moment. With regard to the special fittings for the new destroyers, I am


afraid I am not in a position to give any more details than I gave to the Committee yesterday. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) asked me about the purchase of the motor torpedo boats. The purchase price is to be found in Section III under the beading "A—Propelling, etc. machinery," and "C—Hulls of ships, etc.," but it would be contrary to the usual practice to give at this moment the definite price paid. It does not come under K. The sum of £329,000 under K is, as the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro-Jones) said, for the purchase of trawlers.
I congratulate the hon. Member upon his ingenuity in raising the particular matter on this Vote. I not only congratulate him, but sympathise with and share his interest in the trawling industry. He represents North Aberdeen, but I represent a place which I consider an equally important fishing port, Fleetwood. I can assure him that it is a customary practice of the Admiralty to lay down trawlers for themselves. This, as he rightly said, is a question of emergency. As I said in my speech last night, we had to get vessels of this kind at short notice for local use. We did not have time to build them, arid therefore we had to buy them. It was only because of the emergency that we had to adopt that practice. Our normal custom would be to build them; in fact, in this year's Estimates we did make provision for building two of them.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: What I wanted to secure from the Noble Lord was an assurance that he would get into contact with the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture, and acquaint himself with the condition of the fishing fleet according to the most recent information, as being an extremely relevant factor in the defence of the country, quite apart from the interest, with which I am more urgently charged,

as to the conditions under which the crews of these vessels work.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That point is rather going beyond the scope of this discussion.

Lord STANLEY: I am perfectly prepared to look into the question of the trawler industry from the point of view taken by the hon. Member. In answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Marklew) I am sure the hon. Member will remember that in answer to several questions just before Christmas I made it clear that it was impossible to give compensation to the men who unfortunately lost their employment through these purchases. There was no precedent for it, and it was impossible to find grounds on which to do it in this instance. Any compensation would have to come from the owners. We did the best we could for them by offering them employment.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked one or two questions dealing with the personnel under Vote 8, Section 1. The increase in the cost is partly due to the restoration of the pay cuts and partly due to the considerable number of extra men which we have had to take in, both at home and abroad, to carry out the necessary emergency work. In regard to Section II of the same Vote, he asked whether that was a very large increase due to increased prices or not. It is due to additional stores, replacing in the depots at home stores taken to the Mediterranean on account of the existing emergency. The hon. Member's last question was wtih regard to the extension of the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory required under Vote 10. That, as I told the House, is a new establishment set up at Alexandria, Dumbarton. I think I have now answered all the question.

Question put, "That £4,850,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 226;Noes, 101.

Division No. 58.]
AYES.
[9.9 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)
Bracken, B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brass, Sir W.


Albery, I. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsrn'h)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Bernays, R. H.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Blindell. Sir J.
Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Apsley, Lord
Borodale, Viscount.
Bull, B. B.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bossom, A, C.
Burghley, Lord


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E)
Boulton, W. W.
Butler, R. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Cartland, J. R. H.




Cary, R. A.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Holmes, J. S.
Remer, J. R.


Channon, H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hopkinson, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Christie, J. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ropner, Colonel L,


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ross Taylor. W. (Woodbridge)


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Hunter, T.
Rowlands. G.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ruggles-Brise. Colonel Sir E. A.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Jackson, Sir H.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Salmon, Sir I.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Salt, E. W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Crooke, J. S.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sandys, E. D.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kimball, L.
Scott, Lord William


Cross, R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Crossley, A. C.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lees-Jones, J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Davles, C. (Montgomery)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Davies, Major G. F.(Yeovil)
Levy, T.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st).


De Chair, S. S.
Lewis, O.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Denville, Alfred
Lindsay, K. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H,
Little, Sir E Graham-
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Liewellin, Lieut. -Col. J. J.
Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Duggan, H. J.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Duncan, J. A. L
Loftus, P. C.
Spens, W. P.


Dunglass, Lord
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Eckersley, P. T.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Stewart, J Henderson (Fife, E.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Storey, S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
MacDonald, Rt- Hon M. (Ross)
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Ellis, Sir G.
McKie, J. H.
Strauss. E A. (Southwark, N.)


Elmley, Viscount
Maclay, Hon. J. p.
Strauss, H. A. (Norwich)


Emery, J. F.
Maitland, A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Errington, E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Ersklne Hill, A. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sutcilffe, H.


Evans, D.O (Cardigan)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Tate, Mavis C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne)


Everard, W. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Findlay. Sir E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Fleming, E. L.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Tufnell, Lieut. -Com. R. L.


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Turton, R. H.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morgan, R. H.
Wakefield. W. W.


Ganzonl, Sir J.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Wallace, Captain Euan


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.)
Ward, Lieut.-col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gledhill, G.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wardlaw-Mlinc, Sir J. S.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Munro, P. M.
Warrender. Sir V.


Greene, W. p. C. (Worcester)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wedderburn H. J. S


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
White, H. Graham


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Grimston, R. V.
Penny, Sir G.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Willoughbv de Eresby, Lord


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Petherick, M.
Wilson, Lt. -Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Guy, J. C. M.
Pilkington, R.
Windsor-dive Lieut. -Colonel G.


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wise, A. R.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Radford. E. A.
Wragg, H


Hannah, I. C.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.



Harbord, A.
Ramsbotham, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Commander Southby and Captain


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Waterhouse


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cluse. W. S.
Grenfell, D. R.


Adamson, W. M.
Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cove, W. G.
Groves. T. E.


Ammon, C. G.
Daggar, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hardie, G. D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hayday, A.


Banfield, J. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Henderson. A. (Kingswinford)


Batey, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson. T. (Tradeston)


Bellenger, F.
Day, H.
Hollins, A.


Benson, G.
Ede, J. C.
Hopkin, D.


Bevan, A.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)
Jagger, J.


Bromfield, W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jenkins, A (Pontypool)


Brooke, W.
Frankel, D.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neatn)


Buchanan, G.
Gardner, B. W.
John, W.


Burke, W. A.
Garro-Jones, G. M.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Chater, D.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)







Kelly, W. T
Muff, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, W. J. (H'gh'n-le-Sp'ng)


Kirby, B. V.
Paling, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Lawson, J. J.
Parker, H. J. H.
Taylor, R, J. (Morpeth)


Leach, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, W.


Lee, F.
Potts, J.
Thurtle, E.


Leslie, J. R.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Tinker, J. J.


Logan, D. G.
Riley, B.
Viant, S. P.


Lunn, W.
Ritson, J.
Watkins. F. C.


Macdonald, G.(luce)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Westwood, J.


McEntee, V. La T
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


McGovern, J
Rowson, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Maclean, N
Salter, Dr. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


MacMillan, M. (Western lsles)
Sexton, T. M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Mainwaring, W. H
Shinwell, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Marklew, E
Short, A.



Maxton, J
Sliverman, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Montague, F
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)



Third Resolution read a Second time.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, to leave out "£1,350,000,"and to insert instead thereof "£1,349,000."
Last night, when the Secretary of State for War introduced this Vote, he was very brief, and I rather thought he was off-hand. He told us that some £300,000 or more was accounted for by the restoration of cuts, and with that we quite agree, but he also gave us to understand that that expenditure was offset by a gift of some £400,000, or, at any rate, that the Army was to have its share of the gift of £400,000 from the Sultan of Johore. He said that the rest was for emergencies. This Supplementary Estimate is for £1,350,000, and actually £1,500,000 is provided for emergencies. I remember that, when the last Estimates showed an increase of nearly £4,000,000, the House was startled by it, but it shows where we have got to in our frame of mind on these matters when the Minister who introduces a Supplementary Estimate and asks for £1,500,000 extra for emergency purposes can treat it in what I thought was a rather offhand manner. We have got into a state of mind when this is not considered to be a very serious item.
I am afraid that that is rather the state of mind that is developing in reference to armaments. We are going to spend, it is said, some £200,000,000 or £300,000,000, so what does £1,500,000 matter, particularly as Supplementary Estimates for £6,000,000 or £7,000,000

have preceded this one? The worst of it was that the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to give us the slightest idea of what this extra call is for. It is simply described broadly as "special measures." What are those special measures? I submit that the House of Commons is entitled to know what it is voting money for. We are not at war. This is merely for some vague purpose in a time of peace. Our case generally—I would not attempt to deal with it on the Report stage—our case against these Supplementary Estimates has been put by other speakers. It is that this money has been spent, not in co-operation with the nations who are part of the League of Nations, but in a way that would delight the heart of the most outstanding, I might say the most brass-faced Imperialist in the House; but even then there has been absolutely no explanation of the items that go to make up these costs and of the way in which the money has been spent. There is, for instance, an increase in Vote 6—Quartering and Movements—of over £400,000, including an increase in respect of conveyance by sea of £315,000. Where has the conveyance been to? I think we are entitled to know how that money has been spent.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: Does not the hon. Gentleman read the "Daily Herald"?

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member appears to regard this as a laughing matter—

Sir E. CAMPBELL: I apologise if the hon. Gentleman thinks it rude, but I simply asked him, does he read his daily paper?

Mr. LAWSON: I suppose that if we can get the information from a daily paper we can get much more accurate and official information from the right hon. Gentleman. What the hon. Member has said justifies me in asking for solid reasons for this expenditure. On Vote 6 there is an increase of £277,000. I ask the House to notice this fact as an instance of the rate at which we are going. There is an increase of £170,000 for mechanical transport. The original Estimate for mechanical transport was only £189,000. The Supplementary Estimate is, therefore, almost doubling the amount that it was thought would be needed in the annual Estimates. I think the House is entitled to some explanation why there is such an extraordinary leap in the expenditure in respect of that item. On Vote 9 there is an increase of £368,000 for warlike stores. When the Estimates were discussed I think the increase was something like £1,500,000, and there was a great deal of questioning about it at the time. What the War Office said in answer to our questions was that surplus stores had been diminished, and therefore they needed new stocks. Now we are asked to increase the original Estimates by £440,000, against which certain sums have to be set off. I am aware that the warlike stores do not consist only of ammunition and guns. They include machine guns and stores, mechanically propelled vehicles other than those of the R.A.S.C. armoured cars, tanks and other vehicles.
I understood that we were ready in the ordinary way to meet emergencies. If this money is wanted for this emergency, we are entitled to know on what it has been spent. A feeling is growing very much on this side, and I think in the country, that we are not so much voting Supplementary Estimates for the purposes of this emergency, as that the War Office is getting a bit in advance, what one might call anticipatory expenditure. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the War Office has been ordering on a larger scale than usual, and whether he can give us a guarantee that those who supply these tanks and tractors are not taking advantage of this so-called emergency. This is not a matter that should only concern people on this side. It should concern business men and Members in every part of the House, and all the more so be-

cause the War Office, more than any other Service, has at its disposal great factories, plant and technical skill to an almost greater extent than any private company, and the War Office can set a standard to the other Services that would be very useful, and that might almost become a measuring rod for the other Services. This is not merely the gospel of the Socialists. At Woolwich and at other places the War Office has a great socialised undertaking for the supply of raw materials that is second to none.
I want business men to try to make themselves familiar with this organisation. I remember some years ago that private companies were paying an annual sum to Woolwich for the purpose of getting the benefit of its laboratory investigations and in various other ways. I do not think it will be challenged that the War Office on its ordnance side has made very original discoveries which have sometimes been used by great firms outside. It is well known that cordite was subject to a disease, with which it was very difficult to deal. I think it was the cause of explosions from time to time. I understand that Woolwich can photograph that particular explosive through any depth for the purpose of locating disease, and I understand they have even located diseases in steel. I think I have noticed in the War Office a tendency to treat with scant courtesy those fine organisations which are the possession of the State. I do not like, for instance, the way the Army Clothing Department was thrown off. I know that the lease was up aril all the rest of it, but that was an indication of the light way in which they treat the very fine socialised organisations in the possession of the War Office. They can, if they will, do more, through the proper use of Woolwich and their various factories, to arrest profit-making and to stop the proposed gallop of the hard-faced men than any other section of the Government.
I hope the Minister will give us some information how this money has been spent. I hope he is going to answer my question whether there is any increase of cost for the tanks and all the materials that they have needed as expressed in the Vote, whether they are going to give full faith and confidence to their own organisations, and whether they are going to expand the great ordnance factories in order to produce as much as


possible of their own war material. The most effective limits that can be put on profit making can be put on it by the War Office through the full use of its own undertakings and its own ordnance factories.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: There are one or two questions I would like to ask. On Vote 3 there is an item for the wages of civilians employed at hospitals. I wonder why there is this increase of £30,000. I hope we may have some explanation where that is happening and whether it is because extra people are being taken on, or what is the reason for the increase? I can hardly imagine that this is to make up for the cuts that were imposed in 1931. On Vote 6, Subhead M, what is the reason for the increase in wages of civilians in the Royal Army Service Corps establishment? Is that at home or abroad? Can we have an explanation as to this item of £36,000? On Vote 7, Clothing and the Clothing Allowance, I should like to know if this is due to an increase in the price now that you are putting this work out to contract rather than doing it yourself, as you did for so many years in the past? We need to watch very closely what these clothing contractors are doing, and I hope we shall have an explanation of this increase of £41,000. There is an increase of £53,000 on Vote 8 for general stores. On Vote 40, Works Construction and Maintenance Services, there is an item referred to as Additional Item, Works Services in connection with Special Measures. I believe "special measures." mean the difficulties with regard to the Italo-Abyssinian matter. We have there an increase of £188,600. If this has regard to that particular happening, I would ask for an explanation of it. On Vote 11 there has been an increase in the number of people employed, but we find a decrease in the amount paid for national health and unemployment contributions in respect of soldiers. There has not been a decrease in the Army. There has been an increase in the contributions to health insurance, which was kept very dark during the progress of the General Election. I cannot understand why we are told that there is a decrease of no less than £40,000 in respect of the insurance of soldiers. This Supplementary Estimate causes one to reflect

whether or not everything is being done in this particular Department of State to keep the expenditure within reasonable limits.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. MABANE: There appears to be an obscure point on page 7 of the Supplementary Estimate. It says:
The Estimate also provides for increased expenditure resulting from the decision to accelerate the progress of the Singapore Defence Scheme in the light of the generous gift made by His Highness the Sultan and the State of Johore.
Is the whole of the gift which the Army shares of apparently £400,000 to be appropriated to that particular purpose; it is all intended to be applied to the Singapore defences? If that be so, it is perhaps a little unfortunate that only £47,000 of the cost of the defences appears in this Estimate, whereas the whole of the gift of £400,000 is appropriated in aid of this Estimate. Am I right in saying that the whole of the cost is appropriated to this purpose, and, if so, is it not the case that in future we shall find the difference of £353,000 will have to be met on some future Estimate?

9.47 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): I rather got the impression from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) when he drew attention to the Supplementary Estimate, that he thought that my right hon. Friend last night had treated the House in rather an off-hand manner, and insinuated that we had something to hide, and that we were anxious not to have our Supplementary Estimate discussed before the House. I assure him that that is far from the truth. I am certain that my right hon. Friend had no intention to be off-hand in any sense of the word, and he is still to-day, as he always has been, only too willing to give all the information that it is within his power to give to the House. The inquiries of the hon. Gentleman really come down to three heads. He wanted to know to what the large increase in our expenditure this year was due. I thought that I might be asked to explain a good many points of detail to-night, but I did not think that I should be asked to explain for what the entire sum of money is needed. One might almost imagine from the questions put to me, that the hon. Gentleman


opposite had forgotten that we have for some months past now been faced with a very serious emergency in the Mediterranean.
The large excess on Vote 5 under the Sub-head which he quoted for conveyance of troops has been expended in certain ways, which frankly I am not in a position to discuss here to-night. But it is common knowledge that, in order to safeguard our own interests and the lives of those who depend upon us overseas, we have had to make certain movements, and in these days you cannot move any body of troops, either large or small, without incurring very considerable expenditure. The hon. Gentleman asked me whither these troops had been sent. He knows already, broadly speaking, where they have been sent, and I must ask him not to press me to give him any more detailed information than that which is already in his possession. He drew attention to an item called mechanical transport under Vote 6. Like most of the increases on all these Votes, this item is entirely due to the emergency measures which we have had to take. Here again we have had to renew or to replace certain Royal Army Service Corps vehicles which have had to be put into service in order to meet our requirements as a result of this emergency.
As regards Vote 9, where the increase is very much larger, it will be made clear to him, if I put it before him in this way. He seemed to be confusing the expenditure under this head with an entirely different expenditure which appeared in the Estimates for this year. The House will remember that in the Estimates which were laid before the House this year, sums of money were taken to implement a programme of defence which was originally put before the House in the form of a White Paper. A very large sum indeed was taken under Vote 9 in order to provide deficiences and replacements in warlike stores. That programme having been approved by Parliament, and the money having been allocated, we have, during this year, been carrying out that programme, and we have been providing reserves and necessary supplies where we were authorised to do it when our Estimates were before the House this year. At that time none of us had any knowledge of the emergency which was to fall upon us

in so short a time, and purposely the War Office have kept entirely separate the expenditure upon the increased stores required as a result of this emergency from that required for the prosecution and carrying on of the programme authorised under the original Estimates. To have done anything else would have been very bad business.
If we had taken from the money voted to us on that occasion in order to pay for the extra stores required for the emergency, we should merely have been using one set of emergency requirements in order to pay for another set of emergency requirements, and, of. course, postponing one of them. That is the explanation of why we are to-day asking for another £400,000 odd over and above the additional £2.000,000—the hon. Gentleman rather under-estimated the figure—which we took in the original Estimate. The two things are entirely separate and apart. Much the most important point to which the hon. Gentleman refer red in his speech was when he asked as what steps the Government are taking, or the War Office in particular are taking, to see that we are not made to pay through the nose for the stores and replacements for which we have to make provision as a result of this emergency. The hon. Gentleman was good enough yesterday to give me a little advance information as to what he was going to ask this evening, and I therefore took the precaution to-day of arming myself with the information. The hon. Gentleman has himself occupied the junior ministerial position which I hold to-day, and, in fact, I am constantly reminded of the fact by a photographic reproduction of the genial countenance of the hon. Gentleman which hangs over the mantelpiece in my Office at the War Office.
Even if hon. Members are not aware of the organisation of tie Army Contracts Department, the hon. Gentleman certainly is, and he will know—in fact he admitted it in his speech almost this evening—that the Army Contracts Department is a very live department indeed and works in an exceedingly efficient manner. In that department we do take very great care to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer. The methods by which we carry on that duty are far too complex for me to explain to-night, but perhaps it will satisfy the hon. Member and be a surprise to


the House if I give some figures which I have been able to extract to-day to show that this position is not only being very closely watched but that we can truthfully say that there is no excessive profit-making on the part of the trade at the present time, and that we are getting not only good value for our money but probably better value for our money than any ordinary or private company would get if they were buying the same kind of stores as we are buying.
The chief principle on which we work in the Contracts Department is the competitive tender basis. It sometimes happens that there is no competition. The article that we require may sometimes be supplied by only one particular manufacturer. It is in that particular class of case that one might expect to find more chance of excessive profit-making and opportunities for squeezing the Contracts Department. One of the most expensive class of stores which we have to buy and which is least open to competition is that of mechanical vehicles. There are many types of mechanical vehicles which are not generally manufactured and which are probably designed by one particular firm. If I can give the hon. Member figures in regard to this matter I think he will admit that they are a very fair example of the kind of way that the system is working. I am not in a position at this stage to give names or actual figures, but I have had some figures extracted from some of the largest orders which we have placed before and since the emergency, and I find that although in some cases there has been an increase, that increase has been insignificant, a matter of a £1 or £2 on large sums, and there have been in some cases substantial decreases in price since the emergency period. I am assured that where an increase of price has taken place the difference is amply covered by modifications of design and smaller orders. It is interesting to note not only that that is true but that during this period the tendency has been for the prices of many materials to rise. That is another consideration which must be taken into account.
Our means of checking prices are far too complex for me to explain now, hut, as the hon. Member said, we have a useful check in certain classes of articles we buy, and that is the Royal Ordnance Factory. There we have experience of

what it actually costs to make a good many of the stores that we have to buy, and I agree with the hon. Member that the organisation in those factories to-day is on the very highest plane. It is a revelation to go there, as I have gone more than once since I have been in my present office, and to see at work the system of accounting and costing and the extraordinary efficiency of the manner in which the factories arc run. I can assure the hon. Member that we are fully aware of the valuable work that is being done there, and we make use of that experience at every turn. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked me so many questions and at such a speed that I found it exceedingly difficult to keep pace with him.

Mr. KELLY: I did it to save time.

Sir V. WARRENDER: I appreciate that, but it made it a little difficult for me. The first question was in regard to the increase on Vote 3, wages of civilians in hospitals. The fact is that the military personnel we have had working in the hospitals has been sent abroad and has been temporarily replaced by civilians. The next item to which he referred was on Vote 6, on which he mentioned that the wages of civilians at Royal Army Service Corps establishments had increased by £36,000. I think I am right in saying that that is partly a question of the restoration of pay as a result of the restoration of the cuts. As regards clothing, on Vote 7, that increase is due to the necessary issue of additional clothing arising out of the emergency. On Vote 8, general stores, that again is a question of our having to buy extra stored for our troops, arising out of the emergency. On Vote 10 also the increase arose from the same reason. Here is where I got a lap or two behind the hon. Member. I did not quite understand what he referred to on Vote 11, but I think I am right in saying that the figures there are due to the fact that we overestimated in the original Estimate.

Mr. KELLY: The point I put there was a decrease of 40,000 in the matter of National Health and Unemployment Insurance contributions.

Sir V. WARRENDER: I think it was an over-estimate of contributions and the falling off in unemployment. I think that finishes the questions put by the hon. Member for Rochdale.

Mr. KELLY: All but one, but I will forgive the hon. Baronet.

Sir V. WARRENDER: My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) asked me about the item for Singapore. He is right in his assumption. It is merely a matter of convenience that we have appropriated the whole of our share in this Supplementary Estimate. The figure of £47,000 represents the maximum that we shall be able to spend in the current financial year. The remainder will be shown in the Estimates for next year and the following year. We shall use the money to accelerate the programme for the defences at Singapore. I hope that in

my reply I have satisfied the curiosity of hon. Members and that they will now give us the Vote.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 104.

Division No. 59.]
AYES.
[10.4 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Crossley, A. C.
Jackson, Sir H.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Jones, Sir C. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Culverwell, C. T.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Albery, I. J.
De Chair, S. S.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Denville, Alfred
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Kimball, L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duggan, H. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Dunglass, Lord
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eckersley, P. T.
Lees Jones, J.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Levy, T.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ellis, Sir G.
Lewis, O.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Elmley, Viscount
Lindsay, K. M.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Emery, J. F.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Bernays, R. H.
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Errington, E.
Lloyd, G. W.


Blindell, Sir J.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.


Borodale, Viscount
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Loftus, P. C.


Bossom, A. C.
Everard, W. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Boulton, w. w.
Flndlay, Sir E.
MacAndrew, Lt -Col. Sir C. G.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Fleming, E. L.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
MacDonald. Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A, B.
Fyfe, D. P. M,
McKie, J. H.


Bracken, B.
Ganzoni, sir J.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Brass, Sir W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maitland, A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gledhill, G.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Bull, B. B.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Burghley, Lord
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Grlmston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Butler, R. A.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Moreing, A. C


Cartland, J. R. H.
Guy, J. C. M.
Morgan, B. H.


Gary, R. A.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirancest. r)


Channon, H.
Hannah, I. C.
Muirhead, Lt. Col. A. J.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Munro, P. M.


Christie, J. A.
Harbord, A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Palmer, G E. H.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Harvey, G.
Penny, Sir G.


Cobb, Sir C, S.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Petherick, M.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Pilkington, R.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Procter, Major H. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Holmes, J. S.
Radford, E. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(Wst'r S.G'gs)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hopkinson, A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Courtauld, Major J, S.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, H.


Crooke, J. S.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hume, Sir G. H
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hunter, T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cross, R. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)




Remer, J. R.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Turton, R. H.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wakefield, W. W.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Kn. H. H.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Rowlands, G.
Spens, W. P.
Wardlaw- Milne, Sir J. S.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Warrender, Sir V.


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Storey, S.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Stourton, Hon. J. J.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Salmon, Sir I.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Salt, E. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Sandys, E. D.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G.


Scott, Lord William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wise, A. R.


Seely, Sir H. M.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wragg, H.


Shaw, Major p. S. (Wavertree)
Tate, Mavis C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)



Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Simon, Ri. Hon. Sir J. A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Lieut-Colonel Sir A. Lambert




Ward and Major George Davies.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Hollins, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hopkin, D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Jagger, J.
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Banfield, J. W.
John, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rowson, G.


Bellenger, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. A.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Bovan, A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Bromfield, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Short, A.


Brooke, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Silverman, S. S


Buchanan, G.
Leach, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies. D. L. (Pontypridd)
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGovern, J.
Thorne, W.


Davles, S. O. (Merthyr)
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Marklew, E.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedweilty)
Maxton, J.
Walker, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F,
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptforo)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercilffe)


Grenfell, D. R.
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, sir R. (Newton)


Groves, T. E.
Oliver, G. H.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardle, G. D.
Parker, H. J. H.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Fifth Resolution read a Second time.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I beg to move, to leave out "£1,611,000,"and to insert instead thereof "£1,610,900."
I would like to refer to a point that I, raised yesterday evening, to which the Under-Secretary of State did not give any reply because of the fact that we were considering these Supplementary Estimates more closely upon the Report stage. I pointed out that the explanatory note to the Estimate is of a misleading character. The main purpose of the Estimate is:

To make financial provision for the special measures taken in connection with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute.
When we take the gross expenditure, leaving out of account the appropriations in aid and the amount of savings on certain Votes, we can almost split the total expenditure asked for in this Vote, and the Under-Secretary himself signs a statement to the effect that the gross additional expenditure upon the Royal Air Force expansion is actually about £1,000,000. So that it is not true that the main purpose of the Estimate is to make financial provision for special measures taken in connection with the


Italo-Abyssinian dispute. We have heard in the Debates on these Estimates a, great deal about emergency and a justification for the demand for money because of the situation which has arisen in the Mediterranean. That plea cannot be put forward to anything like the same extent or with anything like the same justification in reference, to these Supplementary Air Estimates. One million pounds out of £2,700,000 represents the expenditure upon Air Force expansion, and I am moving the Amendment as a protest against a practice which is entirely contrary to the traditions of Parliament.
This is a Supplementary Vote based upon an anticipation that in the main Estimates provision will be made for a large-scale increase in Air defences. It is also a part of. the Supplementary Vote of July last, and the position of the Labour party is that before money is asked for from this House we ought to have an opportunity of knowing specifically for what it is asked, and not be put off with a general statement that there is, or has been, an emergency or that we have allowed our Air defences in the past to get to such a low ebb, as a moral gesture to the rest of the world, which the world has not accepted, and that therefore we must re-arm. That is not a correct statement of the position to-day or of the history of the Royal Air Force. The Under-Secretary will know from his own recollections as well as from his knowledge of Air Force matters, which is very great and intimate, that the policy of successive Governments has been one of continuity, and when the main Estimates are presented later on we shall still consider a continuity of the same policy.
In 1918 the Air Staff was instructed to prepare a scheme for the establishment of a highly efficient but small Air Forec in this country. The old wooden aeroplanes which had done duty during the War had been scrapped, and the Air Staff was instructed to prepare for the establishment of a peace-time Air Force. That plan was ready by the Armistice, but it was scrapped by the Government of the time in favour of the Trenchard Memorandum. That Memorandum, instead of agreeing to 154 squadrons, which was the plan of the Air Staff, reduced the number to 24½ squadrons, two of which were to be

used for the purposes of home defence. What was the reason for that change of policy? It was stated very definitely in this House. It was that there was no need to anticipate a major war in Europe for ten years. Consequently, as a measure of economy and efficiency, there was no need to waste money upon large numbers of machines which would rapidly become obsolete. Then there was the Geddes Committee which, although the Air Force of this country in 1921 was about 28 squadrons, proposed a reduction of eight and a-half squadrons, leaving only three squadrons for home defence. Again, that was in conformity with the policy of efficiency and economy.
But the present Prime Minister, who was Prime Minister in 1922, got the wind up, if I may use a common expression, and the phrase was born, which has been used considerably in recent months, that it was necessary for the Air Force of this country to be at least equal to the Air Force of any country within striking distance. The result of that was a proposal to increase the home defence of this country to 52 squadrons by the end of 1928. That was never done, and the Under-Secretary knows why. Successive Governments carried out a policy of continuity. Even to-day we have not reached the proposals that were made in 1922 for increasing the home defences of this country, and that is clue entirely to the fact that it was definitely considered by the Ministry and by the Governments of the time that if we concentrated upon a. high degree of efficiency—we could go on experimenting, because there was no prospect of a war—we could save money and in the end we could Kaye, as indeed we have to-day, the finest Air Force in the world so far as efficiency is concerned. That is a far different thing from leading the people of this country, to imagine that, so far as air matters are concerned at any rate, our disarmament was carried out for the purpose of leading the rest of the nations of the world into the paths of peace. Nothing of the. kind.
I do not intend to take up the position on behalf of the Labour party or myself' that there is necessarily no case for an expansion of the Air Force. That is not the point of the reduction of the Vote I am moving to-night. The point is that if there is a necessity for expanding the Air Force—that is to say, we have passed the 10 years period during which there


would be no likelihood of a major war in Europe and the new policy has come into existence—we ought to know what that necessity is in specific terms. That is the purpose of the reduction of the Vote which I am moving.

10.25 p.m.

Captain H. BALFOUR: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman, and no doubt his point will be dealt with by the Minister. I wish to deal with a question under Vote 3 concerning orders for aeroplanes and equipment in respect of contracts which have already been placed. I do not think the warning can be too clear from this House that all these contracts are strictly and severely on a costing basis. We from this House ought to let the public know that fact. We represent the public in this House and it does not matter whether the public are foolish or are wise in these matters. We have all foolish constituents as well as wise constituents, and it is our duty to represent the foolish as well as the wise. It is our duty to let the public know that in respect of these contracts great profits can not be anticipated. In regard to these contracts and other contracts that are yet to come, we have seen a completely artificial state of affairs growing up outside this House. With a complete lack of discrimination between sound and unsound concerns, the public have been tumbling over each other to buy shares, irrespective of the earning powers of the companies. Very often in this boom we have seen, borne on the backs of sound concerns, companies which, from their inception are never going to earn a penny of profit, and are doomed to fail in a few years and lose the money of those who invest in them.
I give the House a specific instance. I have given considerable study to this question and I imagine that, when the results of the contracts which we are now discussing and also future contracts become known to the public, a cry will go out, not about a ramp in aircraft profits, but about the severe losses that are going to fall on the investing public. I was speaking to a leading aircraft constructor the other day. I cannot mention his name but he is a man of prominence in the industry. A few weeks ago he valued his position at £1,250,000. At that time, because he had contracts which we are discussing

to-night, the Stock Exchange valued his position at £1,500,000. He told me that he was worried because £250,000 was being added in the public estimation to what he knew his position was worth. Since that time the figure has been pushed right up to £2,000,000. Nobody is more disturbed than the leaders of industry who have no control themselves over the rise in prices. Nobody is more concerned than they are at the effects which these contracts are having on the public. I know from my conversations with them that they welcome in their own interest as well as in the national interest price control such as applies to these contracts. I do not ask hon. Members above the Gangway to recognise the national interest because every day at Question Time we have the inference by them that manufacturers are making enormous profits, whereas the Stock Exchange prices have no relation at all to the earning powers of the companies or the profits made.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a very big claim for the aircraft manufacturers. We do not wish to put them all in the same boat, but will he deal with the question of the placing of shares, out of which some aircraft manufacturers have made vast fortunes; and does not that moderate his claim that they are acting solely in the national interest?

Captain BALFOUR: I would be out of order in doing so, and Mr. Speaker, would, no doubt, pull me up very soon. What I will say is that there have been financial manoeuvres which cannot be countenanced by any Member of the House. The average leader in industry, in aircraft or any other concern, only wishes in his own interests to make a reasonable profit. No one is more disturbed than the leaders of industry at the present trend of prices which they know to be very largely unjustified. I think that every day we have had questions from the opposite side above the Gangway to the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary as to these enormous profits. They are not being made by manufacturers, but only by share dealers; and these questions are a direct encouragement to small investors to have a gamble and speculation, which they can ill afford. The questions from the Socialist party are a direct encourage-


ment to these little men to lose their money. The Prime Minister has said that Parliament is not responsible for speculators. While stopping profiteering on these contracts which is to be done the Government and the House have a duty to their constituents to perform. should not pass this Estimate without a clear warning from all well-meaning and good-intentioned people who wish to see the expansion scheme carried out, that it will be fairly and reasonably carried out with fair and reasonable profits for services rendered, and not exorbitant profits. We should not let this Estimate pass without giving that warning to our foolish as well as to our wise constituents.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The hon. Member has made a false statement, perhaps unintentionally. If he will look over the Order Paper for the last few weeks, he will see that the Questions which have been addressed from this side of the House to the Prime Minister have had one object only, namely, to elicit from the Government at the earliest possible moment some idea of the steps the Government are going to take to check the profits of manufacturers of aircraft in order that the public may have guidance as to the actual value of their shares. The hon. Member is entirely incorrect in his statement and has spoken with his customary extravagance, which always characterises him in his references to Members on these benches. It is true we have directed attention to excessive profits, for they are being made in the share market at the present time in anticipation of large orders for aircraft manufacturers. The share market is working on the expectation that if large contracts are to be placed, large profits will be made. The responsibility for that expectation rests on the Government, who refuse to inform the House what checks are to be placed on costs of production. If the hon. Gentleman wants to protect the foolish members of his constituency, whom he so admirably represents in the House, he should join with us in asking the Government to make a public announcement of those safeguards so that his poor lambs may not be shorn.

10.35 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I only rise to ask one question, and I will not at this late

hour enter into the little Debate on aircraft profits which has been introduced into our proceedings, except to say that in my own constituency there is a very large aeroplane works and that I think it is most desirable that the public should know that large profits will not be made, and that the men in the works who may ask for increased wages should know it. I have every confidence that the present Government will learn the lessons of the Government which was under the Premiership of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I hope none of those scandals will be repeated in our rearmament programme. I should like the Under-Secretary to explain why the Vote for aeroplanes and spares—Vote 3A—should show a reduction when we are going in for an expansionist policy. We should expect that Vote to be expanding instead of showing a reduction, but no doubt there is a very good explanation, and we shall be grateful if he will give it to the House.

10.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air a question connected with the command of the Air Force over the Territorial Anti-Aircraft Artillery. While the Air Forces makes certain attachments to the Anti-Aircraft Artillery of the Regular Army during practice camps they do not make attachments in the case of the Anti-Aircraft Artillery of the Territorial Army. Seeing that the defence of this country has been handed over to the Anti-Aircraft Artillery of the Territorial Army, could not the Under Secretary see his way to making attachments from the regular Air Force to the practice camps of the Territorials? This would have the effect not only of increasing the knowledge which the Air Force officers should have before they take command of the activities of the Territorial Artillery, but also would have the effect of increasing the liaison between the officers of the Air Force and the officers of the Territorial Army.

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that that is a matter which ought to be raised on the main Estimates.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: With great respect, I submit that the point I am raising comes under Vote I, which is an


increased Vote for the pay and allowances of the Air Force. If the command of the Territorial Anti-Aircraft Artillery is vested in the Air Force, I submit that it is a suitable subject to raise on this Vote.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is. A question of policy of that sort ought to be raised on the main Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Of course, I. bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think you are aware that there has been a change over, and that the Air Force is invested with the higher command of the Territorial Anti-Aircraft Artillery. While the actual technical details of the Territorial Anti-Aircraft Artillery come under the Army Votes the actual command is vested in the Air Force, and there has been an increase recently, owing to this change over, and the Territorial Anti-Aircraft taking charge of the anti-aircraft defences of this country.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is a subject to be raised on this Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: With all respect, I have made my point, and I will not continue the subject.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I think the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) would be met if the Air Ministry itself engaged in the manufacture of aeroplanes instead of contenting itself with the research side of the work. Why in view of the increase in the establishment, is there a decrease, as there was in the case of the War Department, in the amount paid for health insurance contributions under the National Health Insurance scheme? It is queer, with an increase of staff, that there should be a decreased amount, particularly as the contribution for Health Insurance and pensions has been increased from 1st January. On Vote 4, in regard to works, buildings and land, there is an increase of £128,000 in the services originally provided for, and I ask for some explanation of that increase.
There is an increase also in regard to Orfordness. I am not raising the question of expenditure at this moment, but I would like to know whether it is still the practice to drop bombs from aeroplanes there, and whether better provision could not be made for giving notice to the lighthouse keepers and their

families when aeroplanes are about to engage in this practice. There have been instances of people being so near on the occasion of a practice that it was remarkable that they got away with their lives, because the officers did not give notice or give a signal that they intended to engage upon that practice. Other points which I have in mind I reserve for another time, but I would like an answer to the points which I have raised.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. SANDYS: I want to ask the Under-Secretary if he will tell us in his reply whether, under the item on page 5, "VARIOUS STATIONS, Miscellaneous Air Defence Works," is included anything in the nature of what one might call passive defence measures. We are on the eve of a great expansion in the Royal Air Force, and it is fortunate that there is an opportunity to raise the question on the Supplementary Estimate. There has been a regrettable tendency for some time past to consider that the attacking aeroplane is a military invention to which there exists no counter-measure. That is a defeatist attitude which we cannot afford to adopt. At different times in history formidable machines of war have been invented, and in every case the wit of man has been able to—

Mr. SPEAKER: All this should be raised on the main Estimate.

Mr. SANDYS: I submit that this does come under the item to which I refer. I will be very brief. I merely wish to ask—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not find that it comes under this head.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: I would comment very briefly on one or two remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) who made, as he usually does, an interesting contribution to the Debate, but seemed to be treading on rather thin ice. When he started to draw distinctions between the wise and the foolish people in his constituency, I was reminded of the old saying of Mark Twain:
Ain't we got all the fools in town on our side? and ain't that a big enough majority in any town?
He was on equally dangerous ground when he made exorbitant claims on behalf of aircraft manufacturers. I do


not propose to level charges, but I propose to rebut any claim that they are going into this fight with clean hands. The financial columns of the newspapers during the last few months have been full of accounts of the extravagant profits made by aircraft manufacturers, not necessarily as manufacturers, but in their perhaps more remunerative capacity as financiers. They may be functioning as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but the public pocket suffers in any case. I hope that before those claims are repeated the hon. and gallant Member will inform himself more exactly of the history of the last few months.
It is vitally important that we should gravely warn the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who has a very important responsibility to face, that we shall want to be satisfied, particularly in this realm of aircraft manufacture. Within the last few days questions have been repeatedly addressed from these benches to the Prime Minister and others as to what measures are to be taken to prevent exorbitant profits, but we have received no satisfaction. All that the Prime Minister has been able to say has been that there will be a costings clause in contracts, and the hon. Member for Thanet urged that that should be the case, as if a costings clause in itself would be any adequate safeguard. We know that costs are very variable. They include the costs of the inefficient manufacturer, of the efficient manufacturer, of the middleman, and of subsidiary companies supplying raw materials.
I noticed that the Financial Secretary to the War Office when his Estimates were before the House a few minutes ago, stated, as a great example of the efficiency of the War Office, that they had succeeded in maintaining the costs of mechanical vehicles at within £2 or £3 of what they were before this emergency arose. He stated that the method of checking the manufacturers' prices is multifold. I hope we are not going to be asked, in the coming important debates, to rely on these vague assurances. There is genuine public anxiety. We have not a Minister on the Front Bench to deal with this matter. I do not imply any disrespect to the hon. Baronet, but we know that he is a good stone-wailer. Stone-walling, however,

will be of no use in the important debates that are before us; we shall want to know precisely what measures are being taken to prevent exorbitant profits in manufacture. There is no question that it is an enormous ramp at the present time. When I was dining the other evening—[HoN. MEMBERS "Oh!"]— even Labour Members occasionally dine—I was passed a note written on the back of the menu by a gentleman whose name would be known, I believe, to every Member of this House. He wrote:
Do not do anything about excessive profits in armaments until I have sold my aircraft shares.
He meant that, of course, as a joke, but everyone knows that the programme of the Government is being utilised by financiers. Whatever aircraft manufacturers are doing now, they have in the past made astonishing and exorbitant profits, and the time is ripe for us to know what measures are being taken. I do not expect the hon. Baronet to come armed with this information, but if I, for one, and, I believe, a great many Members, when these Supplementary Estimates are passed, are asked to pass others without the fullest information, we shall want to obstruct those Estimates to the fullest possible extent. We know very well that from the element of defence alone it is even more important that the manufacture of aircraft should be efficient. The air strategist of to-day asks, first, about the performance of a machine, and secondly, what is its production in man-hours. It is far more important in the Air Service than in the Navy or the Army because, for reasons of obsolescence and rapid wear—and in time of war enemy action would multiply the depletion of the Air Force ten or twentyfold—it is vital that the most extensive and elaborate measures should be taken for efficient production of aircraft. But I am not going to do more than give a preliminary warning to the hon. Member of the task that is in front of him.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: I would like to remind the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), who suggested that the Air Ministry should build aeroplanes themselves, of the sad tale of Farnborough. As far as I have been able to ascertain not one satisfactory result has come out of Farnborough. I want to ask the Under-Secretary two questions arming out of Vote 3.


First, with regard to the profit which may be made from aeroplanes and spares, is it not a fact that in every contract placed by the Ministry there is a costings scheme in operation now? Is it also not a fact that the Prime Minister has pledged himself to improve on that costings scheme if it proves itself inadequate? The second question is this—and I know I shall be out of order—would it not be possible for some scheme of excess profits duty to be introduced?

10.55 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I do not think that at this time of the night the House will wish me to embark on any detailed answer to the very interesting Debate that we have had. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. GarroJones), said I was a stonewaller, but in the next breath he threatened me with the most violent obstruction in the forthcoming Debates, so I think we had perhaps better leave this rather thorny subject until those Debates develop. In the meantime I am sure that the House can be absolutely assured that the Air Ministry is leaving no stone unturned to see that in this connection the interests of the taxpayer arc fully and adequately safeguarded. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has asked me about the situation at Orfordness. I will certainly look into the matter. I was extremely surprised to hear that bombing had taken place without warning. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me details of the particular cases to which he has referred. I was asked another question in connection with Vote 3 arid the item of Aeroplanes and Spares. The decrease is merely due to fluctuations in progress payments, and does not imply any hitch in carrying out the programme.
The hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Montague) gave me the impression that he thought I had intended to deceive him last night in the figures of the Estimate. I had no wish to do so and, if I had, it would have been impossible, because the figures are in the Estimates for all to see. I said that the gross figure asked for in this Estimate, not in connection with the emergency, was £1,000,000, but that figure is, of course, reduced by savings which have accrued on other Votes, amounting to about £200,000, as well as the new Appropriations-in-Aid,

which also amount to approximately £200,000, and include the gift of the Sultan and State of Johore. The actual net figure required in the Estimate is only £604,000. The bulk of this gross additional expenditure is under the heading of Works. Special efforts to accelerate the provision of accommodation and land for aerodromes, which are essential preliminaries to the formation of new units, have been so successful that services which were not expected to mature for payment during this financial year have actually been pressed forward to completion. The money that is asked for in this Estimate because of this acceleration will, of course, be saved in the Estimates to come.
The fact that this scheme has been pressed on in this way is satisfactory evidence of the desire of the Government to press forward measures to carry out the approved plans. Then there is the balance of expenditure which comes under other Sub-heads, £33,000 for Clothing and:258,000 for General Stores, and the new Appropriations-in-Aid of £205,000 which have also become available towards meeting this extra expenditure. The only one that requires special mention is the £100,000 from the Sultan and the State of Johore. That money is going to be devoted primarily to the construction of accommodation for a volunteer Air Force unit at Singapore to be formed under the auspices of the Straits Settlements Government.
The hon. Member went into an interesting history of what he called the continuity of Air policy during the past few years. He said that the expansion that was now in progress was not necessarily one to which his party objected, but that he wished to know the reasons for the expansion. I think that it was made clear at the last General Election that the majority of the people of this country were determined that our Air Force should not be weaker than that of any air force within striking distance of this country for two reasons firstly, that we ourselves should be safe, and, secondly, that we should be able to fulfil the obligations which we have undertaken under the Covenant of the League.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The question of whether an increase in expenditure is required does not come into the argument at all. I said that we were not neces-


sarily opposed to some increase provided that it could be justified. My point was that it was bad Parliamentary practice to ask this House to spend money in anticipation of a larger Vote without the opportunity, by means of a White Paper or

some other Government statement, of knowing specifically how it was to be spent.

Question put, "that £1,611,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 112.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[11.2 p m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Elmiey, Viscount
McKle, J. H.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Emery, J. F.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, T.


Albery, I. J.
Entwistle, C. F.
Maitland, A.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Errington, E.
Makins, Brig. -Gen. E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Everard, W. L.
Mason, Lt.-Col, Hon. G. K. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Flndlay, Sir E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fleming, E. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Moreing, A. C.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morgan, R. H.


Barclay- Harvey, C. M.
Gledhill, G.
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Belt, Sir A. L.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Bernays, R. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Munro, P. M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Blindell, Sir J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Borodale, Viscount
Grimston. R. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Penny, Sir G.


Boulton, W. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Petherick, M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Guy, J. C. M.
Pilkington, R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bracken, B.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Brass, Sir W.
Hannah, I. C.
Radford, E. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harbord, A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Harvey, G.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Bull, B. B.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Burghley, Lord
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel A. P.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Remer, J. R


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Rlckards, G W. (Skipton)


Gary, R. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)


Cazalet, Theima (Islington, E.)
Hopkinson, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Channon, H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Christie, J. A.
Hume, Sir G. H
Rowlands, G.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hunter, T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Jackson, Sir H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Salmon, Sir I.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Salt, E. W.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Sandys, E. D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kimball, L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Scott, Lord William


Crooke, J. S.
Latham, Sir P.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shakespeare G. H.


Groom-Johnson, R. P.
Lees- Jones, J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cross, R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Levy, T.
Shepperson, sir E. W.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lewis, O.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J C. C.
Lindsay. K. M.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Davies. Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


De Chair, S. S.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J J.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lloyd, G. W.
Southby, Comdr. A. R J.


Duggan, H. J.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Spears, Brig -Gen. E. L.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Spens, W. P.


Dunglass, Lord
Loftus, P. C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Eckersley, P. T.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Storey, S.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, E. S. (Southwark, N.)


Ellis, Sir G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Elliston, G. S.
McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.




Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Wakefield, W. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G.


Sutcliffe, H.
Wallace, Captain Euan
Wise, A. R.


Tate, Mavis C.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Womereley, Sir W. J.


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Warrender, Sir V.
Wragg, H.


Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Walerhouse, Captain C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.



Tufnell, Lieut. Com. R. L.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—.


Turton, R. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert




Ward and Mr. James Stuart




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parker, H. J. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hollins, A.
Potts, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hopkin, D.
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jagger, J.
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
John, W.
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Benson, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Rowson, G.


Bromfield, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Dr. A.


Brooke, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Sexton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Lathan, G.
Short, A.


Burke, W. A.
Lawson, J. J.
Silverman, S. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Compton, J.
Leonard, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Thurtie, E.


Day, H.
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marklew, E.
Walker, J.


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, G. M.
M liner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Groves, T. E.
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, J. H. (Whltechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hardie, G. D.
Oliver, G. H.



Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [24TH FEBRUARY].

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, the sum of £10,551,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. W. S. Morrison.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

"To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year

ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th February],
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament on 31st January, 1936, subject, however to the following modifications, namely:
In the Schedule, Part II, page 2, line 36, leave out 'Sherpur and Susang Parganas,' and insert 'Dewanganj, Sribardi, Nalitabari, Haluaghat, Durgapur and Kalmakanda police stations.'


In the Schedule, Part II, page 3, line 2, after 'talasil,' insert ' and.'
In the Schedule, Part II, page 3, line 5, leave out the second and,' and insert in.' "—[MrButler.]

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACTS.

11.13 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move,
That the Bacon (Import Regulation) Amendment Order, 1935, dated the eighteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Board of Trade under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, a copy of which was presented to this House on the nineteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.
The House will be aware that imports of bacon into this country have been regulated for some time past under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1933. There have been two previous Orders, and this is the third. The object of this one is to alter the quantity of bacon which may come in weekly from unregulated countries, and the effect of the Order is to reduce from 400 cwts. a week to 225 cwts. a week the supplies of bacon from unregulated countries. The bacon market, as the other agricultural markets of this country, is intended first for the home producer, with the possibility of expansion, than for the Dominion producer, with the possibility of expansion, and the balance for foreign producers. The foreign imports into this country have gone down very rapidly, but countries that have been unregulated have tended to send to this market very much larger supplies than was anticipated, and since 1932 the quantities of bacon coming from unregulated countries have multiplied by some 20 times. The result is that the regular suppliers, the normal countries, which sent large quantities have had their markets interfered with, and the object of this Order is, while keeping the total quantity of bacon that comes in the same, to alter its distribution and see that these unregulated countries have a lesser weekly proportion.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: At this late hour, no one wants to keep the House with a long Debate on the subject of this very sectional Bacon Marketing Order, but, having regard to the effect of this and similar Orders upon the bacon market in this country, and the very grave injury it will cause to the breakfast table of the working classes, we must oppose it. The Government are actually introducing this amending Order within a few days of the grocery trade representatives having waited upon the Board of Trade in order to point out the great severity and hardship of the present high prices of bacon. Danish bacon is quoted at 94s. per cwt. compared with 84s. for the corresponding month of last year. The "Grocer" in its leading article pointed out that for the best cuts you have to pay as. 9d. and 2s. per lb.; and yet at this stage, in order still further to extract from the pockets of the working classes this extra sum, the Government introduce this Order. It must be resisted.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I want to complain about the paltry way in which the hon. Member presented the Order to the House. We were entitled to considerable more explanation than we received. I have taken the trouble to read the Order of which this is an amending Order, and I should have thought there was sufficient complexity in it to warrant more explanation, and this amending Order makes the original Order even more complicated. At the moment there are seven Orders dealing with pigs and the bacon market. Very soon the imports will be so small that we shall have one pig one Order. The original Order said:
If at any time the Board of Trade is satisfied that the rate of importation into the United Kingdom of bacon produced in any foreign country, not being a country named in the schedule to the Order, exceeds 400 cwts. per week, the Board of Trade shall make a declaration to that effect.
That was a simple calculation. Now we have the amount reduced to 225 cwts. for certain countries, and apparently for those who in some way or another have managed to exceed the 400 cwts. it is to be nine-sixteenths of the average weekly weight, based on the total annual weight of bacon produced in that country and imported in the year 1934–35, or whichever


is the greater when compared with the 225 cwts. It gives no definition of the period over which the present imports are to be calculated in order to be compared with the average import during the years 1934–35.
We are given no statement as to the countries to which this will apply. Apparently it is to apply to countries which are not named in the Schedule. The countries in the Schedule are Argentina, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland and Dantzig, Sweden, United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I do not know of any country inhabited by the civilised pig which is not included in that list, and I think we might have been told what other countries there are that have been supplying so much more than 225 cwt. per week during the last few months.
I gathered from an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to-day that the effect of this Order had already been so great that he was considering some alteration of the quota that was being fixed. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the present position with regard to the availability of bacon in this country was causing hardship to the trade and to the consumer. That was how I understood his answer, and I do not think there is any dispute about that. It seems to me that inasmuch as this Order came into force on 1st January, 1936, and is only now being submitted to this House for confirmation, we might have had some explanation as to why the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had to be given this afternoon and this Order presented this evening. I hope that before the House passes the Order we shall receive from the right hon. Gentleman some further explanation and some indication of the countries implicated.
I represent a constituency that firmly believes in free trade. At the last election there were three candidates and they were all free traders. I believe that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) was born in my constituency—at any rate he started work in it—and his name is still held in great honour there. He will agree with me that no candidate will get a vote at all in South Shields

unless he is a free trader, because we are firmly convinced that, much as we may differ from the Durham coalminers on many things, they will not be such fools as to export their coal unless it is going to be paid for, and there is no way in which it can be paid for except by imports. Every one of these restrictions that is being placed on imports makes the export trade of the great exporting ports of the North East Coast of this country more difficult. I only regret that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who is a fellow-townsman of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor, is not here to express to us how that particular document is wrong when applied to the town in which he was born.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. R. ACLAND: I cannot allow to pass without challenge, however brief, the fourth paragraph of the Preamble to this Order, in which it is said:
that there have been or are being taken all such steps as are practicable and necessary for the efficient reorganisation
of the bacon industry. I want to say that it has not been possible for foreign and Dominion bacon industries to win their position in the markets of this country except by standardising and regularising their products. Danish bacon, and even Irish bacon, is known to wholesalers and retailers; they are able to recognise it by its mark; they are able to purchase it with confidence, knowing every time that they will get exactly the same article, whether they buy to-day or next month, whether in London or in Newcastle. But nobody knows at all what British bacon is. On the one day a man will say, "My dear, this is the best bacon I have ever tasted," and on the following day, when there is British bacon again, he will say—whatever it is one does say. There is no standardisation and regularisation. That being the case, there is one British industrial town after another where British bacon is utterly unknown, because the housewife will not be bothered with its variations in quality.
It seems to me that there is no reason whatever why we should not hold a concourse of British bacon to ascertain ten or a dozen of the best grades. Thereafter the factories should be instructed in the means and processes by which


bacon of those grades should be produced, and then they should be compelled to produce at first, say, 75 per cent., rising gradually to 100 per cent., by those methods of curing, and by those methods only, so that at last we should get something in this country which could be known as British bacon and recognised as British bacon. It is fantastic when our industry is definitely less efficient than the foreign industries competing with us, that we should ask for this exclusion of the more efficient, in order to bolster up the less efficient. We cannot accept the premise on which the Order is based and we must therefore oppose it.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I cannot allow the speech of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) to pass without challenge. The hon. Member has in mind exactly what everybody has in mind who is interested in this industry, but in order to get the British bacon industry not only on to its legs but into a position to progress and gradually to reach a. standardisation of bacon, we have first to get some control over the home market. One of the obstacles in our way has been the fact that a certain number of unregulated countries which were supposed to send in only 400 cwts. or less per week, were, especially during last summer, sending in vastly increased quantities which resulted in the home market being seriously jeopardised and caused a serious crisis in the industry. I know that the right hon. Gentleman who opposed this Motion has his own reasons for doing so, but every pig producer and bacon curer in this country desires the Order as a necessary measure in the interests of the industry. I hope the House will support the Order, as a further stage in the effort to make our own industry efficient.

Mr. ACLAND: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the importation of foreign bacon can prevent or delay the setting-up of the standards to which all British bacon should conform?

Mr. SPENS: It would take some time to explain, but the answer is easy. First we have to put the industry on its legs, in order that we may progress slowly, but steadily, to standards of efficiency.

It is a very big business and is going to take some time, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite try to obstruct every step that is going to assist the industry that is their look-out and not mine. I ask the House to support the Government.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to make a protest. We are becoming more and more familiar with the raising of important issues in the House at a time when we cannot discuss them properly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), who is connected with one of the biggest consuming organisations in the country, has had to confine himself to a speech of a few minutes duration en this Order, and we have had two further brief speeches from hon. Members who obviously speak with some knowledge of the subject. This is an important issue to be dealt with so hurriedly. It affects the food of the people. We have been debating the Navy, but what is the use of the Navy if we make the cost of food outside the means of the mass of the people? An hon. Member shakes his head. Does he know that in the east ends of our great cities bacon is practically out with the people, and especially the men on unemployment pay? Hon. Members may say that it will be all right when these schemes are working. Would they like to argue before a judge in that way? The judge would say, "How are the people to live in the meantime?" Hon Members should not fob stuff on us that they would not say in a court. It is not paying us any compliment. We are not discussing this question on its merits; we are discussing it to see whether we can get the Order through by 12 o'clock. This House is perhaps the greatest court in the country, but no court conducts its business by time and with an eye on the clock. Justice ought to come before time. We are not discussing things tonight from the point of view of their rightness or wrongness; we are trying to see whether we can debate them in a particular time.
I would say to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) that there is no need to lecture the Parliamentary Secretary on Free Trade. He made whatever reputation he has on Free Trade. He used to walk about with a blackboard


demonstrating that Free Trade was the only system that would work, and that no other system could work. He was the one man who even outbid Ramsay Muir in explaining Free Trade. Who are we to lecture him nowadays? I say frankly to those who sit on the Government side that the House cannot go on discussing great issues concerning the food of the people at this time of night. It may be that the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has something to say for his theories, but at least the House of Commons ought to discuss them at a proper time. This Order closely affects masses of poor districts, and to pass it in this perfunctory fashion is lowering the standard of the House of Commons. If we were discussing naval issues or issues of defence, no Tory would stand for it, and he has no right to allow other issues of equal importance to be dealt with by a different code of conduct.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. MARKLEW: There is one aspect of this question with which I am concerned as a representative of a port where a great deal of imported bacon is landed. The introduction of such an Order at this hour provides no opportunity for full discussion of its effects upon the housewife who has to dispose of the small wages coming into her home. The Order will unnecessarily increase the cost of living in one of the first articles of consumption on the working man's breakfast table. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to say one word at least on the effect of Regulations such as these on the employment of men engaged in discharging cargoes of bacon coming to this country. Here is a proposal which will practically reduce the employment among those men by one-half. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. I am anxious to know what his view is, but the position is obvious to me. I know from actual contact with the dockers who discharge those ships, and some of them are supporters of the Government in other respects, that they are complaining bitterly. An indication of how their support of the Government is being whittled away is found in the circumstances of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Sir W. Womersley). At the Election in 1931 he had a majority of 17,000, but, largely owing to the effect of legislation such as this upon work at the docks,

that majority fell to 1,700 at the last Election. In the interests of the Government themselves, and more particularly in the interests of these workmen and their wives, more opportunity should be given for the consideration of these important issues.

11.38 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: The House is at all times entitled to any information it likes about Orders of this kind. There can be in the memories of Members few instances of—

Mr. McGOVERN: On a point of Order. I wish to know whether, under the Rules of the House, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak again?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Mover of a Motion has a right of reply, and it is obvious from the questions addressed to the hon. Gentleman that hon. Members wish to hear him.

Mr. MAXTON: I could understand your Ruling if you said that the spokesman for the Government was entitled to reply to questions which had been put to him, but I would like you, Sir Dennis, to refer me to any Standing Order which permits any hon. Member to speak twice when the House is not in Committee.

Dr. BURGIN: Further to that point of Order. I thought, with great respect, that on the substantive Motion I had the right of reply.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not sure whether it is one of the Standing Orders, but my impression is that it is. At any rate it is the practice of the House on an occasion like this that the Member who moves the Motion would, without any leave of the House, have the right of reply.

Mr. MAXTON: Neither I nor my hon. Friends would be anxious to prevent the Minister from speaking but it is the usual practice of the House, and preserves the rights of the House, for the Minister to say, "By leave of the House," and if that ordinary courtesy had been observed I am sure my hon. Friend would never have dreamed of raising the point of Order.

Dr. BURGIN: Perhaps by leave of the House—I am as anxious as any hon. Member to preserve the traditions and rights of the House—perhaps by courtesy


of the House and by leave of the House I may be able to answer the questions which have been put to me.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Even if this point is not dealt with in Standing Orders, which do not cover the whole of our procedure, I think hon. Members will accept Erskine May as an authority. There it is stated:
A reply is only allowed to the peer or member who has proposed a substantive question to the House; and this privilege is accorded to the Mover of a substantive Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
My Ruling was, therefore, in accordance with the practice of the House. The Mover of the Motion has the right to reply. It is obviously for the convenience of the House that the hon. Member should do so, and while I have been considering this point I think he has endeavoured to meet the criticism which was made that he ought to suggest that he was speaking again with the leave of the House.

Dr. BURGIN: I was suggesting that the House is under some misapprehension with regard to the purpose of this Order. Hon. Members have seemed to think that it has some relation to home-cured bacon, and a good deal of one speech was addressed directly to the question as to whether home-cured bacon would he helped by the Order. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) seemed to think that an answer given by the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the admission of further bacon to this country was in some way a variation of the Order. It is nothing of the kind. May I explain briefly something which I thought was generally understood and to which, otherwise, I would have devoted time in introducing the Order? There was only the desire on my part to minimise the discussion by taking as read the Order, as one of a series of Orders dealing with a similar topic.
The hon. Member for South Shields asked to what country these regulations apply. I will give him in a moment a list of those that I know of. The system on which bacon is regulated is to take the great suppliers who have won a place in this market and to treat them as the regulated countries, and to treat every other country as an unregulated country. What has happened since 1932

is that a large number of countries who never before engaged in the bacon trade and in the export trade have suddenly come into the market, endeavouring to sell goods which they hitherto did not export at all. That has created an entirely new situation. Instead of allowing these countries that were unregulated and were few in number, to have up to 400 cwts. of bacon a week, it is necessary in view of the large number of additional countries to have 225 cwts. of bacon a week to arrive at the same total. We are not talking here of further restricting the total of foreign bacon; we are talking of dividing the total sum of bacon in a different way among a larger number of countries. I apologise to the House at once if, in the few sentences with which I introduced that Order, that point had not been made clear to hon. Members who have not followed the series of bacon Orders. We are neither discussing home-cured bacon nor the total amount of foreign bacon coming into this country; we are discussing whether a limited number of foreign countries shall be allowed to export to us 400 cwts. a week, or whether a greater number should be allowed to export 225 cwts. a week; and the mathematical totals of the two are precisely the same.
What we are discussing, therefore, is the distribution among a number of unregulated countries of the total amount that is permitted to come into this country. That is the only point in this Order to which I desire to draw the attention of the House. It is the only paragraph of the main bacon regulating Order which is being amended. There is no question of Free Trade or restriction arising here. The point is the equity of the distribution of a given total among a number of countries fairly. The countries are: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg. Norway, Rumania, Spain, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. The right way to divide the amount which is available for foreign countries in all is to obey our treaty obligations to the regulated countries, to divide up the remainder among the unregulated countries, to endeavour to treat them all with equality and to say that their maximum cannot exceed 225 cwts. a week. It does not alter tile total that comes here; it alters the quantities sent by the


different countries, reducing sonic, which have hitherto sent 400 cwt., to 225 cwt., and permitting some, which have sent less than 225 cwt., to send nine-sixteenths of that quantity. It endeavours to deal with those countries which were regarded as no considerable exporters of bacon on some sort of rough and ready equality by saying that no one is to exceed 225 cwt. per week; that is the sum total of the effect of the Order. No question of the breakfast table, no question of the food of the people, arises or is in order or is germane to this question; we are discussing the distribution of a certain quantity of bacon among a rather larger number of countries. I apologise for not having made t hat clear at the start; I had thought t hat it was clear from the Order itself.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Before I put the Question, I should like to explain a little more clearly the point of Order that was raised. I have already referred to the statement of Erskine May that the. Mover of a substantive Motion has a

right of reply. I think that perhaps some hon. Members may not have distinguished between an Order of the Day and a substantive Motion. This is not an Order of the Day; if it were, the Mover would not have the right to reply. It is a substantive Motion, and, that being so, the Mover has the right to reply, and has not to ask the leave of the House to do so. If hon. Members will be good enough to look at page 139 of the Manual of Procedure and the following page, they will see there confirmation of what I have said, and the reference to Erskine May.

Question put,
That the Bacon (Import Regulation) Amendment Order, 1935, dated the eighteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Board of Trade under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, a copy of which Was presented to this House on the nineteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 104.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[11.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.
Culverwell, C. T.
Holmes. J. S.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
De Chair, S. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Apsley, Lord
Duggan, H. J.
Hunter, T


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Jackson, Sir H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Dunglass, Lord
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Ish of Thanet)
Eckersley, P. T.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Ellis, Sir G.
Latham, Sir P.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Elliston, G. S.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bernays, R. H.
Elmley, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Emery, J. F.
Levy, T.


Blindell, Sir J.
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Lindsay, K. M.


Borodale, Viscount
Entwistle, C. F.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Errington, E.
Lloyd, G. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Locker- Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Everard, W. L.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Findlay, Sir E.
Loftus, P. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Fleming, E. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G
Fraser, Capt. Sir I
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Ganzonl, Sir J
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gledhill, G.
McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.


Bull, B. B.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
McKie, J. H.


Burghley, Lord
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Magnay, T.


Butler, R. A.
Greene, W. p. C. (Worcester)
Maitland, A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cary, R. A.
Grlmston, R. V.
May hew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Channon, H.
Guy, J. C. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hamilton, sir G. C.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Christie, J. A.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Moreing, A. C.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hannah, I. C.
Morgan, R. H.


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Coiville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Harbord, A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harvey, G.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Crooke, J S.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel A. P.
Munro, P. M.


Cross, R. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.




Palmer, G. E. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Tate, Mavis C.


Penny, Sir G.
Salt, E. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Petherick, M.
Scott, Lord William
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Pilkington, R.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Turton, R. H.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wakefield, W, W.


Procter, Major H. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Radford, E. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's u. B'lf'st),
Warrender, Sir V.


Ramsbotham, H.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Rayner, Major R. H.
Spears, Brig. -Gen. E. L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Spens, W. P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wragg, H.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Strickland, Captain W. F.



Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbrldge)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —.


Rowlands, G.
Sueter. Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Major George Davies and Mr.


Rugglcs-Brlse, Colonel Sir E. A.
Sutcliffe, H.
James Stuart




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Potts, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinlord)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Ammon. C. G.
Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jagger, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Banfield, J. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Batey, J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F.
John. W.
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Klrby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Compton, J.
Lee. F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Thurtte, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel. D.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Marklew, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Maxton, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbru, W.)
Oliver, G. H.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, H. J. H.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Handle, G. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (METERS) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday, 12th March.—[Mr. H. G. Williams.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.